Skip to comments.
Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts? Big ideas for the future of energy (Ronald Bailey)
Reason Magazine ^
| 24 November 2006
| Ronald Bailey
Posted on 11/25/2006 9:12:14 PM PST by Stultis
Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts?
Big ideas for the future of energy
Ronald Bailey | November 24, 2006
The flip side of the climate change conundrum is energy. Burning fossil fuelscoal, oil, gasproduces 80 percent of the world's commercial energy. They also produce 61 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to be increasing the earth's average temperature. In the past, energy production scaled directly with a country's gross domestic product (GDP). More energy produced more GDP. But some analysts believe the connection between GDP growth and energy is loosening, which, if true, is good news because it means that fueling future economic growth will be easier to achieve.
However, Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, writes a sobering analysis of the challenge of supplying adequate energy to the world in 2050. In his article, "On the Future of Global Energy" in the current issue of Daedalus (unfortunately not online), Nocera begins with the amount of energy currently being used on a per capita basis in various countries and then extrapolates what that usage implies for a world of 9 billion people in 2050. For example, in 2002 the United States used 3.3 terawatts (TW), China 1.5 TW, India 0.46 TW, Africa 0.45 TW and so forth. Totaling it all up, Nocera finds, "the global population burned energy at a rate of 13.5 TW." A terawatt equals one trillion watt-hours.
Nocera calculates that if 9 billion people in 2050 used energy at the rate that Americans do today that the world would have to generate 102.2 TW of powermore than seven times current production. If people adopted the energy lifestyle of Western Europe, power production would need to rise to 45.5 terawatts. On the other hand if the world's 9 billion in 2050 adopted India's current living standards, the world would need to produce only 4 TW of power. Nocera suggests, assuming heroic conservation measures that would enable affluent American lifestyles, that "conservative estimates of energy use place our global energy need at 28-35 TW in 2050." This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW.
So where will the extra energy come from? Relying on figures from the World Energy Assessment by the United Nations Development Program, Nocera looks at the maximum amounts of power that various non-fossil fuel sources might supply. Biomass could supply 7-10 TW of energy, but that is the equivalent of harvesting all current crops solely for energy. Nuclear could produce 8 TW which implies building 8000 new reactors over the 45 years at a rate of one new plant every two days. Wind would generate 2.1 TW if every site on the globe with class 3 winds or greater were occupied with windmills. Winds at a class 3 site blow at 11.5 miles per hour at 33 feet above the ground. And hydro-power could produce 0.7-2 TW if dams were placed on every untapped river on the earth. Nocera concludes, "The message is clear. The additional energy we need in 2050 over the current 13.5 TW base, is simply not attainable from long discussed sourcesthe global appetite for energy is simply too great."
Burning coal, gas, and oil could fuel the world in 2050, but the carbon dioxide produced by these fossil fuels would have somehow to be captured and sequestered (CCS) underground in order to prevent it from being vented into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming. Some CCS pilot projects have been launched but they are not cheap and they are far from proven.
Given the magnitude of the problem of fueling the future with carbon-neutral energy, Nocera argues that the only real alternative for carbon-neutral energy production is some form of solar power. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year. But converting sunlight into energy useful to people is a huge unsolved technological problem. In 2000, author Richard Rhodes and nuclear engineer Denis Beller calculated that using current solar power technologies to construct a global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron resources, take a century to build and cover a half-million square miles. Clearly a lot of technological innovation needs to take place before solar becomes an option for fueling the world.
The challenge of supplying the world with carbon neutral energy has a lot of people calling for the launching of a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project." What they mean is that the Federal government should dramatically boost research and development spending for novel energy technologies. Let's recall that the Apollo Project absorbed 5.3 percent of the Federal government's budget in 1965. A comparable expenditure would be $136 billion in 2006that's almost 5 times higher than the Energy Department's 2006 budget. It is also more than the Federal government currently spends on the agriculture, commerce, energy, homeland security, interior, justice and labor departments. Let's also recall that the Apollo program turned out to be a technological dead end that managed to get just 12 astronauts to walk on the moon. Another telling example of Federal bungling in the energy field was the $20 billion wasted on President Jimmy Carter's Synfuels Corporation which was a pilot project that aimed to make oil production from coal commercially viable. It died in 1985.
Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead, eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market. No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.
Disclosure: I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil stock. So what!
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
1
posted on
11/25/2006 9:12:18 PM PST
by
Stultis
To: Stultis
Solve one problem, create a hundred others.
Free, limitless energy will place demands on other resources, and the same complainers will cry injustice, claim oppression, and demand more answers through government.
To: b_sharp; neutrality; anguish; SeaLion; Fractal Trader; grjr21; bitt; KevinDavis; Momaw Nadon; ...
FutureTechPing! |
An emergent technologies list covering biomedical research, fusion power, nanotech, AI robotics, and other related fields. FReepmail to join or drop. |
|
|
|
3
posted on
11/25/2006 9:26:05 PM PST
by
AntiGuv
("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
To: Stultis
After millions of billions of federal fund expenditures on research, scientists announced today....
4
posted on
11/25/2006 9:44:38 PM PST
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: Stultis
5
posted on
11/25/2006 9:48:31 PM PST
by
WOSG
(The 4-fold path to save America - Think right, act right, speak right, vote right!)
To: potlatch; PhilDragoo; ntnychik; dixiechick2000; Stultis
6
posted on
11/25/2006 9:52:21 PM PST
by
devolve
( .................always shop, invest, & hire wisely)
To: devolve; ntnychik; PhilDragoo; bitt; dixiechick2000
Well, Gore has the means to either cool us or warm us;
Like your 'greenie' lineup!!
7
posted on
11/25/2006 10:02:49 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
To: Stultis
Forty-five years is a long time. Technology can be expected to make great strides in that time.
There are a great many technologies on the horizon that may have great impact on these figures
High temperature super conductors could reduce line losses in electric power transmission increasing effective power output 20%.
It is conceivable that nuclear fusion could become practical in that time frame generating cheap carbon free power (Whoopee).
And there are always new unexpected discoveries popping up. Who knows what might happen.
If we dont solve the problem energy will become more expensive and demand will be reduced in response and again the problem will solve itself.
But I expect that if government stays out of the way the market will produce adequate power to meet demand. Left to itself the market will produce energy much more abundantly and cheaply than any government agency could imagine.
8
posted on
11/25/2006 10:04:05 PM PST
by
Pontiac
(All are worthy of freedom, none are incapable.)
To: potlatch
I like your "Dumbo" .gif
--
The "Soybean Six" is another algore innovation - this time in agriculture
9
posted on
11/25/2006 10:08:36 PM PST
by
devolve
( .................always shop, invest, & hire wisely)
To: devolve
"He's doing it to avoid the disaster of a parboiled planet"
His brain is parboiled!
10
posted on
11/25/2006 10:20:49 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
To: potlatch
It snowed in Florida last week
algore has milked this to strongarm corporations to force them to put him on BODs and get payoffs
Like Hillaryscare - algore figures to get "a piece of the action"
11
posted on
11/25/2006 10:26:54 PM PST
by
devolve
( .................always shop, invest, & hire wisely)
To: devolve
So it's all just a 'SNOWJOB', huh? Funny but possibly true.
Our weather here has been cooler all summer and fall.
Surprising about snow in Florida.
12
posted on
11/25/2006 10:30:29 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
To: potlatch
It was nearly 60 degrees here in Chicago today.
I'll take all the global warming I can get.
L
13
posted on
11/25/2006 10:33:55 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.)
To: potlatch
Once in a while winters got below freezing
Horses and cattle were not acclimated to that - crops would freeze to
Burning old tires would often get farmers over a frosty night
Keeping the stock moving was the thing for the cattle
Citrus was a problem - they would use heaters in the groves
14
posted on
11/25/2006 10:37:23 PM PST
by
devolve
( .................always shop, invest, & hire wisely)
To: devolve; Lurker
It's been in the low 40's here in South Texas for some time at night. Our coldest weather is usually in late December through February.
Looks like we 'may' have more freezes this year!
15
posted on
11/25/2006 10:38:05 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
To: devolve
Similar to us in S. Texas. We seldom have a freeze that lasts longer than a few hours. Usually don't lose plants over it.
Our horses used to stay in the barn out of the wind.
16
posted on
11/25/2006 10:40:53 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
To: potlatch
In NC & New England we make the horses wear heavy wool sweaters and drink lots of hot chocolate
17
posted on
11/25/2006 10:44:34 PM PST
by
devolve
( .................always shop, invest, & hire wisely)
To: potlatch
It's 54 degrees topside here.
Pretty darn comfortable for a late November in the Chicago burbs.
We don't usually break out the heavy coats till it hits the low teens or so.
L
18
posted on
11/25/2006 10:48:47 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.)
To: devolve
In NC & New England we make the horses wear heavy wool sweaters and drink lots of hot chocolate Do you know what I would be doing right now if it wasn't so late??
19
posted on
11/25/2006 10:49:31 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
To: devolve; Lurker
We don't usually break out the heavy coats till it hits the low teens or soMy coat comes out in the low 40's!!
20
posted on
11/25/2006 10:51:18 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson