Some CO2 scenarios

[GliderGuider]

I keep looking for ways to illustrate how critical it is that we reduce atmospheric CO2 by all means possible.

The graph below shows what happens to CO2 over time under 5 different scenarios:

• Business as Usual. In this scenario the level of CO2 emissions keeps rising at about its current rate of 1.5% per year.
  
• We cap our CO2 emissions at about today's level of ~9 GtC per year, and remain at that level forever.
  
• We reduce our emissions by 25% over the next 40 years and remain at that level thereafter.
  
• Reduce CO2 output by 50% over the next 40 years, then remain at that level.
  
• A reduction of 75% over the next 40 years, then stabilize at 25% of today's output.

The horizontal green and red bars mark 280 ppmv and 350 ppmv. The general recommendation seems to be that if we want to avoid major climate damage we have to return to 350 ppmv, and to avoid all damage we must return to 280.

Under BAU the CO2 levels keep climbing to over 650 ppmv - well into catastrophic territory. The only scenario that sees us return to below 350 ppmv over the next century is the most stringent one, that requires us to cut our emissions by 75% within 40 years.

Can we replace 75% of all fossil fuel use within 40 years by using conservation, wind and solar? It seems like a very tall order. Even if we went nuclear in a big way this might not be possible.
Any growth in CO2 output above our current emissions will result in us staying at or above 450 ppmv.

As usual, the problem is much more one of socioeconomic desire and political will than technological capability. In other words, it's much more a question of evolved neuropsychology and culture than science.

One thing is certain - the longer we stay on the current BAU path the more painful the eventual (and inevitable) correction becomes, whether it's voluntary or involuntary.

For anyone who is interested in the technicalities, the CO2 uptake model I used was developed by Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck in 1999. It's a refinement of the Bern model, and is described here.

[wtmusic]

1. Build one nuclear generating station every week for the next 40 years

and it's possible:

"Do we need nuclear power?

...If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2

Free login is required (worth it for this article alone).

[tinrobot]

4. That assumes no cutbacks on consumption.

Still, it is a tall order.

Perhaps we should pursue all three and whatever else is out there (geothermal, tidal, etc...)

I'd also suggest placing solar on rooftops first before plowing over the desert.

[GliderGuider]

5. Cutbacks on consumption

Cutbacks on consumption seem to have come with a pretty steep economic price tag attached over the last 40 years. Efficiency improvements are possible, but they get harder and harder to achieve as time goes on, and they tend to be swamped by the additional consumption requirements of economic growth elsewhere on the planet. Outright declines in consumption are politically impossible to suggest without a clear and present danger to justify them. The only reason global fossil fuel consumption has declined in the last two years is because of the recession.

My views on wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power don't need re-stating here.

Estamos tan jodidos...

[joshcryer]

7. There's a massive amount of room to improve efficiency yet, still.

We're talking 100 nuclear plants worth of energy savings here. Overall, though, I agree with you, I'm just sayin'. There's a lot of room left to make our shit more efficient. We just don't give a shit.

$500 bucks says no climate bill is passed in the next 2 years.

[Javaman]

10. it's been said by leading climate scientists, that we could cut back on

our energy use, as a nation, by up to 1/3 and not notice any difference.

consumption is the key, but alas, anyone talking about conservation these days are derided as a commie liberal fascist pinko socialist.

We live in odd times.

[joshcryer]

14. Yep, I agree, and it would foster innovation to insane levels.

We're stagnant, and I think that's really the indicator as to where we're heading more than anything else.

[kristopher]

9. directing resources to nuclear slows the response to climate change

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

13. You mean it might make it slower than it already is?

How is that possible? We're doing nothing significant about it at the moment.

[joshcryer]

15. You don't understand, .2% annual investment is an incredible indicator that we're fixing it.

Silly person.

(Best case scenarios require at least 10% investment, or 50x current investment.)

[kristopher]

16. 0.2% investment in nuclear yields less power more slowly than if spent on renewables.

Or, conversely, 10% spent on nuclear yields significantly less than if spent on renewables.

Any way you slice it, nuclear is a boondoggle and directing funds in that direction slows the response to climate change.

[GliderGuider]

17. 0.2% investment in EITHER yields NOT ENOUGH power to do any good for anybody.

Why worry about nuclear slowing down wind when neither technology is displacing any fossil fuel use whatsoever?

Your worry is a purely ideological consideration, not a practical concern.

Not that I expect you to care about the practicalities of the planetary predicament.

[joshcryer]

21. I dunno about that. 0.2% investment in Gen IV radioactive waste disposal technology...

...would certainly foster economical opportunities that the nuclear industry, and the renewable industry (and not to mention the fossil fuel industry) wouldn't like.

Tom Blees wants us to nationalize our grid. I like that idea.

[joshcryer]

19. That's actually untrue, Statistical did the numbers, it's about break-even under *current* scenarios

...Gen IV could be done for a fraction of the cost.

[joshcryer]

20. Note: Statistical did the numbers on the HIGHEST cost Gen III nuclear.

Using the numbers you and bananas' bandy about all the time. It's a wash.

[GliderGuider]

23. Got linky?

I must have missed it.

[joshcryer]

32. I tried finding it to no avail.

Naturally when he was doing the numbers no one debated it.

[GliderGuider]

24. About the CO2 opportunity cost of nuclear power vs. wind

There are currently ~64 GWe of nuclear plants under construction worldwide. If they come online over the next 5 years, that will be an average of 13 GW of new capacity per year. There are a further 156 GW in the planning stage. If two thirds of those come online over the subsequent five years from 2015 to 2020, there will be 20 GW of new generation coming online each year during that time. That gives a rough average of 15 GW per year of new nuclear capacity over the next 10 years.

Wind power had its best year in 2009, and installed 38.5 GW of global capacity, or about 10 GW of actual generation. So, wind and nuclear are demonstrating quite similar capacity buildouts at the moment. There has been a hiccup in wind installations recently, but it remains to be seen how long the downturn lasts, and if it affects all large capital-intensive energy projects including nuclear.

There are about 376 GWe of nukes online right now, compared to about 40 GWe (actual generation) of wind. Last year nuclear power generated about 7.5 times as much electricity as wind did.

If things go according to plans, by 2020 nuclear generation will have grown by about 40%, from 2560 TWh to about 3600 TWh. To match that, wind will need to grow by 25% per year until 2020. Given wind power's 28% pa growth rate over the last 12 years, that may be possible.

Given these growth profiles, between now and 2020 wind power will have avoided the production of about 19 Gt of CO2, and nuclear power will have avoided over twice that amount, about 39 Gt. 100+% over 10 years (7.5% per year) looks to me like an argument in favour of nuclear power at this time.

Now, for NEW installations it's another story. Over the next 10 years new wind will avoid about 14 Gt of CO2, while new nuclear will avoid only about 6.5 Gt. For comparison, we generate a total about 30 Gt of CO2 annually, so the average difference of .75 Gt between wind and nuclear (2.5%) doesn't seem like anything to be staying awake at night over.

The opportunity cost argument might make sense when the two sources are able to produce the same amount of power annually. At this time, we are still avoiding a lot more CO2 by building nuclear power.

[kristopher]

27. Faulty analysis (again) that misdefines "opportunity cost"

The issue is "opportunity cost" which means that when you spend your time or money on one thing, then you CANNOT spend it on something else.

You have not addressed that at all so you have not even begun to touch on opportunity costs.

IF
Presume the cost of all development of wind and nuclear were combined into one pool and spent over 10 years.

If that is spent on nuclear it would yield XX amount of generated electricity.

If the same amount of money is spent on wind it would yield XX plus considerably more generated electricity.

The variables involved are the time to plan, permit, build, operate, refurbish, and decommission + the monetary cost to plan, permit, build, operate, refurbish, and decommission.

Renewables all have huge advantages over nuclear that results in far greater dollar for dollar results.

Add to that the waste, proliferation and safety problems with nuclear that do not exist with renewables and it is very clear why all environmental organizations reject nuclear as a part of the solution to climate change and energy security concerns.

Because of those problems, it is simply not possible to consider nuclear any more environmentally friendly than is coal with carbon capture.

[GliderGuider]

35. CO2 opportunity cost vs economic opportunity cost.

The life cycle costs of nuclear and wind power are quite similar, so spending money on either wind or nuclear produces the desired outcome (electricity) at a similar cost. The economic opportunity cost argument only holds if you can prove that a speedup or slowdown in nuclear power construction would have an inverse effect on wind power because they share the same capital pool. I don't think you can demonstrate this, so the argument is moot.

The issue that Jacobson points to is not economic opportunity cost so much as CO2 opportunity cost. As I understand it, he means that because wind power comes on line faster than nuclear power, so wind-generated electricity starts avoiding CO2 from coal plants sooner than nuclear power does. Nukes only avoid CO2 generation once they come on line.

I think that when considered as a global, multi-year issue, the CO2 opportunity cost argument is also moot - the size of the installed generating base (of all technologies) makes the differences in in-year CO2 avoidance small enough to be essentially noise. The way it works is that if you have 52 nukes being built annually world-wide, they come on-line at an average of one per week. From a CO2 perspective, that's essentially a continuous like instead of a stair-step function. Even though the same amount of wind power would more closely approximate a smooth function, there are so many factors at play in the carbon cycle that any difference between the two functions would be swamped by those effects.

Here's an example of what I mean:



This graph shows the effect of installing one unit of wind power every day versus seven units of nuclear power coming on line at the end of each week. The CO2 opportunity cost is the space between the two lines. If the units are larger - say we were only bringing on all our nuclear power at the end of the year - the difference would of course be much greater. It has to do with the relative granularity of the build-out of the two technologies.

[GliderGuider]

40. A little more on CO2 opportunity cost

Let's look at the actual CO2 emission opportunity cost of one month of the world's current nuclear and wind programs.

We'll start with some assumptions:

• Coal plants generate the American average of 1.3 kg CO2 per Kwh, nuclear power generates 100 grams of CO2 per Kwh, and wind generates no CO2 at all.
  
• Over the next 5 years the world will bring on line an average of 1 GWe of new nuclear power per month (64 GWe over 5 years).
  
• The world's wind installation is approximately similar - 1 GWe of new generation per month.
  
• The nuclear plant only comes on line at the end of the month.
  
• Wind power comes on line daily, pro-rated to 1/30 the total monthly capacity each day.

That 1 GW of nuclear power will theoretically avoid 0.864 Mt of CO2 from coal each month after it is completed (720,000 MWh at 1.2 tonnes CO2/MWh). For the month during which the plant is not operational, the avoided amount is of course 0.

For wind power, the total amount of CO2 avoided at the end of the month will be (720 * 1.3)/2 = .468 Mt CO2.

Now, if we built 2 GWe of wind instead of one each of wind and nuclear, we would avoid (0.468*2)= 0.936 Mt of CO2. Since the nuke contributes 0 avoidance during the month, the opportunity cost of building one GWe each of wind and nuclear (in the scenario where 1 GWe of each is coming on line each month) is the amount avoided by building the second GWe of wind generation, or 0.468 Mt. This is the CO2 emission that could have been avoided if we had built all wind instead of the second nuke.

Now, let's give our derived figure of 0.486 Mt per month a bit of perspective. World emissions of CO2 are about 30 Gt per year, or 2500 Mt per month. That means that the CO2 opportunity cost of our current build program is 0.02%.

Now, what about during full operation? Our nuke generates 0.072 Mt of CO2 per month, while the wind power generates none according to the assumptions. This 0.072 Mt represents an opportunity cost of 0.003% of the global CO2 emissions budget.

The opportunity cost of CO2 emissions as raised by Jacobson is utterly irrelevant.

[kristopher]

57. That is total tripe.

You have not performed an analysis of the opportunity costs of the relevant technologies; all you've done is try to hide the facts behind a lot of made-up nonsense that is designed to (falsely) portray nuclear as being equal to the renewable/efficiency path. Your supposed analysis completely fails to factor in the duration of the non-productive commitment of resources required to actually begin generating electricity. All you've done is use sophistry to try and hide your omission.


Here is what a valid analysis looks like:

4b. Carbon emissions due to opportunity cost from planning-to-
operation delays

The investment in an energy technology with a long time between planning and operation increases carbon dioxide and air pollutant emissions relative to a technology with a short time between planning and operation. This occurs because the delay permits the longer operation of higher-carbon emitting existing power generation, such as natural gas peaker plants or coal-fired power plants, until their replacement occurs. In other words, the delay results in an opportunity cost in terms of climate- and air-pollution-relevant emissions. In the future, the power mix will likely become cleaner; thus, the "opportunity-cost emissions" will probably decrease over the long term. Ideally, we would model such changes over time. However, given that fossil-power construction continues to increase worldwide simultaneously with expansion of cleaner energy sources and the uncertainty of the rate of change, we estimate such emissions based on the current power mix.

The time between planning and operation of a technology includes the time to site, finance, permit, insure, construct, license, and connect the technology to the utility grid. The time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant includes the time to obtain a site and construction permit, the time between construction permit approval and issue, and the construction time of the plant. In March, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first request for a site permit in 30 yr. This process took 3.5 yr. The time to review and approve a construction permit is another 2 yr and the time between the construction permit approval and issue is about 0.5 yr. Thus, the minimum time for preconstruction approvals (and financing) is 6 yr. We estimate the maximum time as 10 yr. The time to construct a nuclear reactor depends significantly on regulatory requirements and costs. Because of inflation in the 1970s and more stringent safety regulation on nuclear power plants placed shortly before and after the Three-Mile Island accident in 1979, US nuclear plant construction times increased from around 7 yr in 1971 to 12 yr in 1980.63 The median construction time for reactors in the US built since 1970 is 9 yr.64

US regulations have been streamlined somewhat, and nuclear power plant developers suggest that construction costs are now lower and construction times shorter than they have been historically. However, projected costs for new nuclear reactors have historically been underestimated64 and construction costs of all new energy facilities have recently risen. Nevertheless, based on the most optimistic future projections of nuclear power construction times of 4–5 yr65 and those times based on historic data,64 we assume future construction times due to nuclear power plants as 4–9 yr. Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10–19 yr. The time between planning and operation of a wind farm includes a development and construction period. The develop- ment period, which includes the time required to identify a site, purchase or lease the land, monitor winds, install transmission, negotiate a power-purchase agreement, and obtain permits, can take from 0.5–5 yr, with more typical times from 1–3 yr. The construction period for a small to medium wind farm (15 MW or less) is 1 year and for a large farm is 1–2 yr.66 Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a large wind farm is 2–5 yr.

For geothermal power, the development time can, in extreme cases, take over a decade but with an average time of 2 yr.27 We use a range of 1–3 yr. Construction times for a cluster of geothermal plants of 250 MW or more are at least 2 yr.67 We use a range of 2–3 yr. Thus, the total planning-to-operation time for a large geothermal power plant is 3–6 yr.

For CSP, the construction time is similar to that of a wind farm. For example, Nevada Solar One required about 1.5 yr for construction. Similarly, an ethanol refinery requires about 1.5 yr to construct. We assume a range in both cases of 1–2 yr. We also assume the development time is the same as that for a wind farm, 1–3 yr. Thus, the overall planning-to-operation time for a CSP plant or ethanol refinery is 2–5 yr. We assume the same time range for tidal, wave, and solar-PV power plants.

The time to plan and construct a coal-fired power plant without CCS equipment is generally 5–8 yr. CCS technology would be added during this period. The development time is another 1–3 yr. Thus, the total planning-to-operation time for a standard coal plant with CCS is estimated to be 6–11 yr. If the coal-CCS plant is an IGCC plant, the time may be longer since none has been built to date.

Dams with hydroelectric power plants have varying construction times. Aswan Dam required 13 yr (1889–1902). Hoover Dam required 4 yr (1931 to 1935). Shasta Dam required 7 yr (1938–1945). Glen Canyon Dam required 10 yr (1956 to 1966). Gardiner Dam required 8 yr (1959–1967). Construction on Three Gorges Dam in China began on December 14, 1994 and is expected to be fully operation only in 2011, after 15 yr. Plans for the dam were submitted in the 1980s. Here, we assume a normal range of construction periods of 6–12 yr and a development period of 2–4 yr for a total planning-to-operation period of 8–16 yr.

We assume that after the first lifetime of any plant, the plant is refurbished or retrofitted, requiring a downtime of 2–4 yr for nuclear, 2–3 yr for coal-CCS, and 1–2 yr for all other technologies. We then calculate the CO2e emissions per kWh due to the total downtime for each technology over 100 yr of operation assuming emissions during downtime will be the average current emission of the power sector. Finally, we subtract such emissions for each technology from that of the technology with the least emissions to obtain the ‘‘opportunity-cost’’ CO2e emissions for the technology. The opportunity-cost emissions of the least-emitting technology is, by definition, zero. Solar-PV, CSP, and wind all had the lowest CO2e emissions due to planning-to-operation time, so any could be used to determine the opportunity cost of the other technologies.

We perform this analysis for only the electricity-generating technologies. For corn and cellulosic ethanol the CO2e emissions are already equal to or greater than those of gasoline, so the downtime of an ethanol refinery is unlikely to increase CO2e emissions relative to current transportation emissions.

Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3. For solar-PV, CSP, and wind, the opportunity cost was zero since these all had the lowest CO2e emissions due to delays. Wave and tidal had an opportunity cost only because the lifetimes of these technologies are shorter than those of the other technologies due to the harsh conditions of being on the surface or under ocean water, so replacing wave and tidal devices will occur more frequently than replacing the other devices, increasing down time of the former.

Although hydroelectric power plants have very long lifetimes, the time between their planning and initial operation is substantial, causing high opportunity cost CO2e emissions for them. The same problem arises with nuclear and coal-CCS plants. For nuclear, the opportunity CO2e is much larger than the lifecycle CO2e. Coal-CCS’s opportunity-cost CO2e is much smaller than its lifecycle CO2e. In sum, the technologies that have moderate to long lifetimes and that can be planned and installed quickly are those with the lowest opportunity cost CO2e emissions.

Full article available for download here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

[GliderGuider]

72. In this case "opportunity cost" is not well enough specified to be meaningful

Opportunity cost is defined as "the cost related to the next-best choice available to someone who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices." There are two problems with this definition in relation to the wind/nuclear decision.

First, the definition leaves open the interpretation of "next-best choice", which depends entirely on the criteria of whoever is doing the choosing. Is the criterion the quantity of electricity generated, the cost of the electricity, the amount of CO2 generated per KWh or the carbon cost of CO2 avoided - or something else entirely like political advantage or aesthetics? The choice of goal dramatically influences the calculation of opportunity cost. In my case I picked the amount of CO2 generated per KWh as the primary criterion. Other choices will yield other results.

The second problem with the definition of opportunity cost is deciding whether the choices are mutually exclusive. You feel they are, but I'm not so sure. Here are the reasons I demur:

First, each phase of a project (plan, build, operate and decommission) is done by different people using different resources, so there is no mutual exclusivity between project phases. The planning team for one project can proceed to another project as soon as the build team takes over, the build team goes to another project as soon as the build is done and the operations team takes over. Given the work forces available globally, large numbers of projects of the same type can be done in parallel. There is no significant slack time due to resource scarcity, which is another requirement for there to be an opportunity cost.

Next, wind and nuclear programs require entirely different skill sets and different resources. As a result there is no mutual exclusivity between the two programs. Both can proceed as quickly as possible, using their own human and physical resources. One area in which there might be scarcity resulting in mutual exclusivity is in financing - dollars are fungible in a way that skill sets aren't. However, the availability of capital is driven by many factors, and it's hard to pin down factors that might affect one program more than the other. Both programs have risk issues, both have public acceptability issues, both have discount rate exposures that drive the cost of financing. There seems to be enough money available to keep both programsd going, and I haven't seen any evidence yet that nuclear funding per se interferes with the availability of capital for wind projects, or vice versa.

Finally, opportunity costs due to planning delays are mitigated by having a large number of parallel projects at different life cycle phases, as well as there being a large installed base relative to the build program. This is why my calculation of the opportunity cost of CO2 emission was so low. An opportunity cost that might be significant if a single project is considered in isolation (which is essentially the same as ignoring the operating installed base), shrinks in importance when considered in the context of the entire program.

Any attempt to use "opportunity cost" as a cudgel with which to beat on nuclear power needs a lot more explaining and quantification than Jacobson has given it, in terms of goals, methods of calculation and demonstrations of scarcity and mutual exclusivity.

As it stands, the opportunity cost objection is bullshit.

[kristopher]

75. Your attempt at spin is what lacks meaning

The resources are time and money. When we spend our money on building nuclear power plants we get SIGNIFICANTLY LESS electricity over any given time period than if we had spent our money on renewables/efficiency.

It is as simple as that and while there are many other extremely important factors involved, few are more important as we decide which technological path to pursue as a solution to climate change.

Your attempts to hide the facts in order to promote nuclear power are nothing short of lame.

When we spend our money on building nuclear power plants we get SIGNIFICANTLY LESS electricity over any given time period than if we had spent our money on renewables/efficiency.

When we spend our money on building nuclear power plants we get SIGNIFICANTLY LESS electricity over any given time period than if we had spent our money on renewables/efficiency.

When we spend our money on building nuclear power plants we get SIGNIFICANTLY LESS electricity over any given time period than if we had spent our money on renewables/efficiency.

[GliderGuider]

76. Your statement is true so long as you include efficiency only on one side of the equation.

What happens if we spend our money on nuclear/efficiency versus renewables/efficiency?

Efficiency gains don't care what generation technologies they are partnered with, so they work just as well in a nuclear context as a renewable one. Since they cost exactly the same in either case, they cancel out of the equation.

Like this:

if x is money spent on nuclear electricity, y is money spent on renewable electricity, N is some number of kilowatts of nuclear energy, R is some number of kilowatts of renewable electricity, and E is an efficiency factor, then the equation is:

xNE = yRE

Simplifying, we get:

xN = yR

If we set x equal to y (i.e. we spend the same constant amount on electricity from each source) and let N and R vary, then:

N = the amount of nuclear electricity we get for $x
and
R = the amount of renewable electricity we get for $x

On the other hand if we set N equal to R (i.e. we buy the same amount of power from each source) and let x and y vary, then:

x = the cost of N KWh of electricity from nuclear sources.
and
y = the cost of N KWh of electricity from renewable sources.

This is mathematically the same as saying the different costs of a KWh of nuclear or renewable electricity reflect their production costs (duh).

So, your introduction of efficiency is a red herring intended to bolster your case for renewables, and the opportunity cost given your criterion of electricity price points decisively towards nuclear power as being the superior solution, with renewables bearing the opportunity cost.

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Advanced nuclear: $119/MWh
Onshore wind: $149/MWh

http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_pes/pes/subpages/meetings-folder/2006_Wind/presentations/Gehl.pdf (PDF)

Nuclear: $46/MWh
Wind: $75/MWh

It's no wonder you had to drag efficiency in there on the renewable side.

[kristopher]

78. This point has always made me suspect your motives for supporting nuclear

You always rail at excess consumption, yet it is *undeniable* that large-scale centralized thermal generation is tied directly to economic incentives to increase demand, not decrease it. In fact, analysts attribute most of our energy wasteful lifestyle to the actions of utilities to promote energy consumption. So when you simultaneously push nuclear power while trying to establish "green" bona fides by ranting against over-consumption, the supposed goals are completely incongruous.

It is one of the primary differences between large-scale centralized thermal and distributed generation.

This is why you NEVER see energy efficiency and nuclear as part of the same proposal as paying for nuclear is predicated on an expanding market for their product.

Here is a sample of the way the problem manifests itself as utilities struggle to maintain and increase their money flow.

Electricity rates and fixed charges: how US utilities suppress distributed generation

Published: Jan 1, 2008

We all understand that distributed generation and CHP systems can be more efficient than conventional, centrally generated power as delivered by utilities. So why don’t more US customers generate their own power? In this issue’s second feature article on distributed generation in the US, Joshua M. Pearce says it is largely to do with the way utilities charge for power.

Until recently most distributed generation technologies were used on a relatively large scale and thus represented a relatively small threat to electric utility dominance. Today, however, an armada of home-scale distributed generation and cogeneration systems is available to the public. These technologies include wind turbines, solar photovoltaic cells, fuel cells, microturbines, Stirling engines, combustion turbines and reciprocating engines.

Historically, electric utilities have used many methods to discourage the use of these technologies, such as double metering (e.g. one meter measures the electricity they sell you at the retail price of 10 cents per kWh and the other measures the electricity they buy from you at their avoidable costs of around 2 cents per kWh). Today, as net metering laws have come into force in a growing number of states, electric utilities have resorted to more insidious attacks, such as quietly increasing unavoidable customer charges to allow for lower avoidable electric rates to compete with distributed generation technologies.

A recent study1 published in Energy Policy found that removing unavoidable electric utility charges by folding them into electric rates would eliminate 44.3 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide and save the entire US residential sector over US $8 billion per year. These reductions would come from increased avoidable costs thus leveraging an increased rate of return on investments in energy efficiency, cogeneration and distributed generation. If the customer charge were eliminated, this could have far-reaching effects on small-scale (home scale) cogeneration and on-site power production...

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/321146/articles/cogeneration-and-on-site-power-production/volume-9/issue-1/features/electricity-rates-and-fixed-charges-how-us-utilities-suppress-distributed-generation.html

[GliderGuider]

79. Incongruous? It may seem so. Let me explain.

I see overconsumption as one of the fundamental problems of our civilization. Overconsumption of everything, not just energy. I also know how utterly addicted people are to their consumptive habits. Remember "The American way of life is not negotiable"? 99.9% of your brethren believe that sound-bite down to their toenails. Overconsumption is such an ingrained habit that essentially everyone on the planet wants the chance to do it, and those who do not are ridiculed and even suspected of anti-social tendencies. Our addiction to consumption isn't a moral failure. It's a tendency that springs from our brain structure, one that is supported and amplified by a global culture that is commercial at every level about every activity.

However, my support for nuclear power is not based on any tendency it might have to encourage overconsumption. I don't think Joe and Jane Average who turn on the stove are even aware of where the electricity comes from, any more than they are aware that the meat they turn out of its styrofoam tray into the frying pan once belonged to a living animal that was abused in a feedlot before being summarily killed for their delectation. The consumption itself is the important thing, not the origin of any of the consumables. Joe and Jane will leave wind-powered lights burning as readily as nuclear-powered ones, and they will have a second helping of free range beef as eagerly as as a second helping of feedlot beef.

Providers of commodities certainly have a role to play in encouraging consumption - they can do little else given the commercial nature of our global civilization. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to encourage consumption of their product. Utilities that sell commercial-scale wind power are every bit as likely to engage in unethical or discriminatory practices as ones that sell nuclear power. To a corporation the power source does not come with any inherent morality, it's just a means to manufacture the end product - electricity. To correct that situation I'd like to see fictive personhood abolished for corporations, and some kind of corporate ethical code instituted - one that goes beyond fiduciary responsibility to stockholders and obedience to laws they have paid to have weakened. Certainly making them sell commercial-scale wind power as opposed to nuclear power is not going to turn utilities into good corporate citizens.

Individual power generation is still a niche market because most consumers have no interest in maintaining their own power systems. They just want to consume, and anything that makes that easier is what they'll do. It will take more than policy changes to shift that behaviour. It would take the complete commoditization of distributed power generation, to the point where it's as thought-free as calling the local utility for a grid hook-up. Frankly, while distributed individual-scale electrical generation is interesting I don't see it taking off to the extent that it would challenge nuclear power in global generation capacity, even with efficiencies factored in. Such power has a constituency, but I'm not part of it.

My support for nuclear power has nothing to do with consumption issues, though. The reason I support it is very, very simple. Carbon dioxide is the enemy. Nuclear power, for all its failings, is still the largest low-GHG source of electricity on the planet. Commercial scale wind power is coming along, but until we have licked the carbon dragon, or some other source is both cheaper and more productive than nuclear power, we can't afford not to use it. At the moment wind is a decent bet, but even with all the installation work that's been going on the KWh still aren't there and wind electricity is still more expensive than nuclear electricity. Until that changes I believe we have to keep using nuclear power, or coal and gas will continue to render our planet more and more inhospitable to life as we know it and wish to live it.

[wtmusic]

31. "between now and 2020 wind power will have avoided the production

of about 19 Gt of CO2, and nuclear power will have avoided over twice that amount, about 39 Gt."

seems to contradict the following:

"Over the next 10 years new wind will avoid about 14 Gt of CO2, while new nuclear will avoid only about 6.5 Gt." Are you referring to the years 2020-2030? If so, how are you arriving at these figures?

[GliderGuider]

33. Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I might have been

The 19 Gt figure is for ALL electricity produced by wind, including the existing capacity and all new capacity. The figure of 14 Gt is for only the NEW capacity only, and reflects the growth curve of wind installations.

Similarly for nuclear power - ALL nuclear power, including the installed base AND new capacity will avoid the production of 39 Gt of CO2 compared to the equivalent coal generation over the next 10 years, while the NEW capacity only will avoid about 6.5 Gt.

The difference reflects wind power's stronger installation growth curve.

[wtmusic]

42. Got it, thanks. nt

[XemaSab]

36. This is assuming we don't hit "peak wind"

n/t

[GliderGuider]

38. Yeah. It's interesting that winds may be slowing down

China sure can't afford the wind to slow down any more - their capacity factor has already dropped from 17% to 12% in the last 5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

[elocs]

2. I see nothing being done and business as usual. It's likely already too late.

Pretty much we're screwed and nothing is being done to address the consequences either.

[GliderGuider]

3. I have to agree.

I don't clap for Tinkerbell any more, so posts like this tend to have a passive-aggressive component...

[joshcryer]

6. To the greatest page, GG. ;)

I guess I clicked in time. :D

[azul]

8. The 2 behaviors that may doom us.

Animal farms and oil energy -eating meat and driving cars.

The very basic things we do every day, that we totally identify with, are cooking the planet. The established industries for meat and oil are much of the problem because they can easily convince their customers that they really don't want to change as long as there is a sliver of doubt of the causes of climate change.

People don't really want to hear that their lifestyles are criminal behavior to future generations, and will resist until clearly superior alternatives are available.

The real battle is being waged in the media for science fact vs feel-good emotion where facts-don't-matter. And the media's present bias is not factual.

[Gregorian]

11. You didn't mention the single most important factor which drives all of it.

I can only assume why one would not include it. Maybe you just forgot. Or maybe you don't want to admit that it's the actual problem. And being so obvious I won't mention it.

[GliderGuider]

12. It's implicit in every discussion of this topic. To wit:

People don't really want to hear that their lifestyles are criminal behavior to future generations...

[Nederland]

18. Ok, I'll bite

What is it? Having children?

[Gregorian]

22. You win.

What did you win? A vacation for five. Fields turned to concrete and condominiums. Massive supercharged farming operations. Rivers destroyed by logging operations to provide billions of people with lumber. Acidification of oceans due to manufacturing of nitrogen fertilizers. CO2 concentrations above which the planet can sustain equilibrium. And an added bonus of destruction of things that are beautiful.

[azul]

25. Oh, you must be from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

http://www.vhemt.org/

"May we live long and die out."

[Gregorian]

28. I'm from "the patient is in critical shape, get to the emergency room" movement.

Not the "I am fine, don't worry about the hemorrhage, everything will work out if we just stay positive" movement.

Consumption is only a small fraction of the solution, and will not solve the problem. We either immediately become responsible for our breeding habits, or most likely see dire consequences. It's not a movement, it's a disaster that we must treat.

[azul]

30. We can only really speak for ourselves.

I have no children. How about you?

[GliderGuider]

41. None here...

[Gregorian]

46. No. 54 years old and won't.

By the way, I know this tends to be an emotionally charged issue. I applaud you for being civil. It's emotional for me for different reasons than for those who want children. I want to preserve a planet. Argh, I could write a book. I better just get back to designing the mezzanine for my shop, speaking of carbon footprint.

[GliderGuider]

43. VHEMT is a great organization! I'm very much a supporter. n/t

[stuntcat]

54. truth-facers

mark my word.

I have to live about 50 more years.. not giving a baby the rest of this pathetic century is giving me the strength to face it :)

[wtmusic]

26. Having children is fine. Having too many is not.

If all couples in the world had two or less, population would decrease.

Lowering the global birthrate will prove an easier nut to crack than consumption.

[azul]

29. Yes, China limits births,

but can not stop building coal plants, until it may be too late.

They are leading the world now in implementing sustainable energy alternatives because they make actual plans.

The US military is even making energy plans for beyond oil, but not our senators and congressmen in any real directed effort.

[wtmusic]

44. I have two kids

and it was due to a very conscious awareness of the statistical fact that two is responsible, and three is not.

Also aware that if the world is only populated by children of irresponsible adults, it will go to hell in a handbasket that much sooner.

[GliderGuider]

45. "children of irresponsible adults" = "Idiocracy"

That movie so rocked...

[GliderGuider]

48. Given that we're in 50% overshoot already and heading in deeper all the time,

what earthly justification is there for stabilizing as opposed to reducing the population?

[stuntcat]

56. yup. humans more than QUADRUPLED in about half a century

People who can wrap their spongy minds around that fact then still say adding more people is a good idea just BLOW my mind :nuke:

[wtmusic]

59. Half a century, give or take half a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[stuntcat]

60. & there will be a painful crash

every reason for giving innocent people the next 90 years is ultimately selfish.

[wtmusic]

61. Everything is ultimately selfish, but that's beside the point.

It gives me great, selfish pleasure thinking that my not-so-innocent kids might be able to make the world a better place.

[stuntcat]

62. that's the first time anyone's ever told me that!

ahhh humans :) each making such a great difference!

[wtmusic]

64. You're not the first pessimist I've ever met either

but hopefully optimism is a genetically-inherited trait :D

[stuntcat]

66. "optimism is a genetically-inherited trait"

totally! it's part of being human

[Nederland]

47. Here is the problem with having no children

All of our social safety nets were constructed on the assumption that population would at the very least be flat, if not increase slightly. All of the retirement and medical insurance systems in the first world are pay as you go systems. The money you pay in taxes while working goes to pay for the benefits of current retirees. Some people think that the money they pay in taxes pays for their own future benefits--they don't, they are paying for their parent's benefits.

I agree with wtmusic. The responsible thing is to have two children and raise them well. My suggestion to all those that have no children on this thread is that they forgo any and all retirement and medical benefits and work till they day they die :)

[GliderGuider]

49. And infinite growth is the morality of a cancer cell.

We are better than cancer cells, right? How shall we stop ourselves from growing? By cutting our consumption? By reducing our numbers? Every last one of us needs to stop doing a third of what we're doing right now - every last one of us - to fit within the limits of the planet. If we don't either cut our activity levels or our numbers, at some point Mother Nature is going to take over.

Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about health care or the state of your 401(k).

I have no kids, I will be working until I die, and I'll take whatever health care is available to me in the process.

[Nederland]

50. Responses

We are better than cancer cells, right?

Yes.

How shall we stop ourselves from growing?

By every couple having only two children.

By cutting our consumption?

Improving efficiency would be a good way of cutting consumption without impacting standard of living.

By reducing our numbers?

Maybe, but you would have to do it gradually or governments will face financial ruin.

Every last one of us needs to stop doing a third of what we're doing right now - every last one of us - to fit within the limits of the planet.

That is an opinion that is basically unprovable. Why not 25%? Why not 40%? If you are honest, you'd have to admit that the 1/3 number is simply a wild ass guess. The "limits of the planet" is an extremely vague construct that is scientifically meaningless.

[GliderGuider]

51. The one-third number is the current estimate of human overshoot

The concept of ecological footprint was developed by Wackernagel and Rees, and is used by WWF and the Global Footprint Network. All their assumptions and calculations are available. The fact (it's quite a bit stronger than an "opinion") that we are 50% into overshoot means we are using up 50% more of the planet's resources than we would need to be if we wanted "sustainability" to be anything more than a nonsense word. To cut back from 150% to 100% takes a 33.3% reduction.

If we were at or below 100% of the global footprint, your position (stabilize population, rely on efficiency) would make sense. We're above 100%, so your position is nonsense.

Take a look at the Living Planet Report (PDF) for some background.

[wtmusic]

52. By only considering population stabilization and efficiency

you're not taking into account development of new resources. For example, the Living Planet Report doesn't even consider the possibilites of nuclear desalination, which IMO will be critical to ensuring availability of freshwater to most of the world's population.

[GliderGuider]

53. I think taking a piecemeal approach like that misses the point.

So we get desalination. Does that water go to growing crops, or is it simply drinking water? If it's just drinking water, then more people survive thirst simply to put pressure on local food supplies, social infrastructure and other resources. Desalination doesn't "solve" the problem, it just morphs it.

My canonical example of this sort of band-aid thinking is the dream of the Polywell "Mr. Fusion" reactor. We get scads of carbon-free energy, but the fish still go extinct, soil fertility continues to decline, we continue (or even increase) mining for metals, social and economic power continue to consolidate, and humans continue to decimate the habitat of the other creatures that share our planet.

The predicament we face is the product of an evil brew of technological cleverness, short-sighted self-interest and a quasi-religious conviction that we are somehow apart from nature. More of the same won't fix it, and technological fixes like nuclear desalination are decidedly "more of the same." I have nothing against nuclear desalination as a technology - it's just that looking to technology to haul our ass out of the fire is a deep, fundamental misreading of the nature of the problem.

[wtmusic]

58. All we have is a piecemeal approach.

That approach has cut the percentage of malnourished people in the world by half since 1970, despite a doubling of world population. This isn't a problem of the future - it's happening right now, and it's being solved right now, mostly in places that you (I will guess) and I have never been to.

So I'm not sure why you consider technological cleverness as part of an "evil brew" - for billions it's a lifesaver. It can even continue to reduce the percentage of hunger, and ideally feed everyone: there's enough food production right now to feed 12 billion people, and two out of three UN estimates shows world population dropping or stabilizing at 9 billion by 2060. And I'll disagree that scads of carbon-free energy will of necessity hasten the extinction of fish, etc. etc. Energy can be used for reconstruction and recycling - for restoring natural balance, and its potential for that has been largely untapped.

Whether it can happen fast enough to preserve the world "as we know it" is anyone's guess and frankly anyone's opinion. I'm convinced that rhinos will be extinct in 50 years, but when it happens they will only be the latest in a cataclysmic decline in biodiversity which has been ongoing for 100 years. How many thousands of species have gone extinct without ever being discovered? Tragic for you and I, but possibly not for most. If that's the case there's really nothing we can do.

Even assuming we're able to avoid a nuclear apocalypse and able to feed everyone, the world of 2100 will be a very different place. "Wild", "remote", and "unspoiled" will be distant concepts. We're going to have to accept that world to survive, because if you're looking for a fundamental change in human nature you won't get it.

[stuntcat]

63. "if you're looking for a fundamental change in human nature you won't get it."

you are so totally 100% right!! :headbang:

[GliderGuider]

70. Technology on its own isn't evil (and a bunch of other thoughts)

Thanks for prompting a bit of Thursday-morning introspection :-)

Technology itself isn't good or evil, it simply leverages our ability to impact the world around us. In the hands of far-sighted, altruistic, empathic people who understand that they are part of a larger web of life, technology does wonderful things. Of course many people, especially those in control of large amounts of highly developed technology, can't be described in those terms. In addition, many people who use extremely destructive technology like automobiles don't see themselves as selfish, short-sighted or alienated from nature. They see themselves as just living their lives - driving their kids to school and themselves to work, or going to commune with nature in distant unspoiled places. Unfortunately, the consequences of their actions are devastating to the planet regardless of their conscious motivation.

I see the combination of technology, shortsightedness and alienation from nature as an "evil brew" because the consequences that flow from it are so manifestly damaging to non-human life, as well as to the quality of life of those we don't see as "us", part of our tribe.

*

There appears to be an irreducible proportion of hunger on the planet - sometimes it's a little bigger, sometimes a bit smaller, but its always there. Economists have a term, "frictional unemployment," meaning the basic level of unemployment that always seem to exist, that the system can't eliminate in a free-functioning state. I think hunger exhibits a similar characteristic - not from voluntary causes as in the case of frictional unemployment, but because the global system is too complex to permit perfectly even distribution of food under any circumstance. elimination of hunger is a nice, altruistic, empathic concept, but it appears to be unrealistic.

I also think that we have the food/population equation backwards. It's not that growing populations need more food, but that food enables populations to grow. In the case of people, since we aren't foragers like other animals, there is a feedback loop between people and food that tends to cause the population to grow fast enough to remain, in the aggregate, near the outer limit of the food supply. This ensures a relatively constant proportion of hunger and malnutrition in the world, even in the presence of rising populations and growing food supplies - the growth on both sides of the equation remains approximately in balance.

*

Think about the phrase "preserve the world as we know it" for a moment. Have we ever done that? Is the world today the same world we knew 100 years ago? Ten years ago? Last year? Last week? Yesterday? It is utterly impossible for us to preserve the world as we know it, except in very small domains for very short periods of time. Every year another 80 million people - a new Germany or Egypt - are born. Even with a stable population the world would be changed irretrievably every second by human activity. This happens for big things like species extinctions as well as small things like digging a new garden. Change is literally the only constant, and the less energy we spend mourning the past or hoping for a particular future, the more energy we have for making ethical, altruistic, empathic decisions about what we're doing right now.

*

Finally, I've noticed something interesting about human nature in the last few years. I used to write us off as a broken species because of the way our evolved brains and our culture shaped our behaviour in such irredeemably negative ways. However, when I look at individuals rather than large groups (or the species as a whole) I see a very different picture. On an individual basis and in small groups we are perfectly capable of far-sighted, altruistic, empathic behaviour. That realization has pointed me towards the path I'm now taking in the face of the unfolding catastrophe, of working with individuals to help them shift theior perspective on the world to a more holistic and connected level.

[wtmusic]

74. Yes, yes, yes.

It *is* important to view the world from the anthropocentric standpoint - we instinctively view our surroundings as a space to fill, not as a part of any sustainable plan. Now we're being put to the test in social terms - whether we can rise to the occasion as a species, and adopt a worldview which acts in response to the complement of available resources: the lack of space we have to fill.

Unlike honeybees, we only get one shot. But the comparison raises other ethical questions. Like honeybees, for example: would we collectively agree to sacrifice some of our own so that the hive might survive? How do we avoid crossing the fine line from social to selfish, when we're right back where we started? These kinds of questions seem unapproachable and extreme now; whether they will always remain so IMO is doubtful. Extreme challenges beget extreme actions.

The term "frictional unemployment" does seem to be similar to hunger in that a significant percentage will always exist. Probably not a result of the impossibility of feeding everyone, but of the limits of our charitability - after a certain point, we just don't care.

I agree that on the whole things look pretty dismal, but I will take comfort in your concept of working on an individual level, which may be our only chance to make any kind of real difference. :thumbsup:

[Nederland]

55. The fundamental problem with these types of groups

...is that that they have a history of being wrong. Every time.

It's great that they have a bunch of charts and graphs showing current levels of consumption, cropland usage, deforestation, etc. All the pretty pictures in the the world doesn't make you right though. The bottom line is that these groups fail the basic test of science: formulate a theory, make a specific predictions, see them happen in the real world.

Time after time organizations like this have failed this test. I trust I do not need to dig up the numerous and embarrassing failed predictions of Lester Brown and Paul Ehrlich as proof. Time and time again these individuals have told us that disaster was right around the corner only to be proven wrong by the reality of disaster not happening. As a result, they have stopped making verifiable predictions like how many people will die what the average life expectancy will be and resorted to making claims that cannot be verified and therefore cannot be disproved. For example, the latest trend is to claim that species are going extinct at an unsustainable rate. This is an unverifiable claim because 1) we do not actually know how many species there are; 2) we do not know the rate at which new species evolve; and 3) we do not have a reliable way of determining that a species is actually extinct (for most types of life). Many have made wild claims that we have already seen of hundreds of thousand of species go extinct, but if you ask for a list of actual names of species they can't give you more than 100 examples.

Their failures can be traced to a common root cause: ignoring technological advances. If Paul Ehrlich had bothered to read about the advances in agriculture that had already happened by the time he wrote the population bomb in 1969, he would not have predicted that "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Organizations like WWF and the Global Footprint Network are simply the latest groups to underestimate the effects of technology.

[Gregorian]

68. That's true. But how do you conclude the number two is appropriate?

I argue that if each person has two children then the resulting rate of decrease of world population will be too slow to provide for an adequate change in the things that are killing the planet. Only one of which is carbon emissions.

The rate of decrease in world population cannot happen soon enough. But how does one quantify that? In an emergency, one must do whatever it takes. Taking a chance with all future generations to live on this planet is not worth playing with.

What you have mentioned is the reasoning behind why almost all governments go into panic when birth rates slow.

[wtmusic]

69. After one, my wife still hadn't given birth to a male heir.

But seriously, putting a number on it is important, and zero is unrealistic. It's like pushing everyone to sell their car to help end global warming - ain't gonna happen. If you propose that people limit their driving, that's medicine that a lot can accept (especially with the weather getting wacky). And statistically speaking, if tomorrow all couples limited their families to two children, 9 months from now global population would flatline.

I agree that we have to do whatever it takes, but I'm also quite serious that if all the responsible adults have no kids, we'll have a future filled with irresponsible adults. I'm trying to teach my spawn to be hardcore environmental advocates, and so far have been fairly successful.

[Gregorian]

77. No one said anything about "no" children.

No children results in no human race in approximately 100 years. I mean, that's just silly.

Flat line carbon emissions is still an emergency. That's my point. But I have a feeling you are totally on top of all of this. It's the 99.999% of the rest of the human race that needs to open their eyes. I wish I could close mine. Man, would life be a lot less disturbing. But like watching your own mother being raped, it's rather difficult for some of us.

[GliderGuider]

34. Population vs consumption

The argument has been going on since the 60's: "Which is the crucial factor in the despoiling of the planet, the number of people or the amount we consume?"

The fact that it's still going on is a measure of the difficulty of separating the two issues. It seems intuitively obvious that both are crucial - people have been rqavvaging the planet ever since there were just a few million of us with pointy sticks. However the advent of writing meant that technology could accumulate and self-amplify more effectively, vastly increasing our individual leverage and impact on the planet.

If we accept GDP as a crude measure of human activity, then one indicator that our consumptive impact on the planet is greater than our simple numbers would imply is the measure of GDP per capita:



The rising slope of the graph tells us that the effects of consumption are rising faster than our numbers. The sharp upward break in the graph at 1940 implies that the technological development spurred by WWII effectively decoupled consumption from population. Since 1950 world population has risen by 165% while per capita GDP has risen by 850%.

I used to think that population was the crucial factor. I changed my mind about a year ago. If we don't get our consumption under control first we (and much of the planet) are fucked.

[Nederland]

65. GDP per capita != Resource Consumption

The fact that GDP per capita has been rising steadily does not imply that resource usage has been rising steadily. The steady trend of the last 30 years is for a larger and larger percentage of our GDP to be derived from trading in virtual things like information, not physical things like iron. As a result, you cannot necessarily link rising per capita GDP to rising resource usage.

[GliderGuider]

73. GDP trends are a valid indicator of consumption trends in hard resources

While some of the rise in GDP is due to trade in information and services, resource consumption has continued to rise nonetheless. Trade in information can't happen without underlying resource consumption, so while GDP data may not give an accurate quantitative value for resource consumption, the trend is valid:



In this graph you can clearly see the effect of the 2008 global recession on cement and iron consumption, as well as the 5-year plateau in oil consumption due at least in part to Peak Oil.

[The2ndWheel]

37. Tough to think there's a single most important factor that drives all of it

Too many moving parts in the equation for there to be a single factor that could be labeled most important.

[GliderGuider]

39. Yes, every problem in a system this complex is multi-factorial.

It's not as satisfying as being able to say "If we only did this one thing..." but it's much more realistic. If it were easy we'd have fixed it by now.

[Gregorian]

67. As more and more people begin living modern lifestyles, number of people becomes more important.

The starving in Africa have very little carbon footprint. But they are in the minority. Billions of humans are beginning to turn on the hot water, and drive cars. As a result, the number one factor that drives all of it is the number of users. This is why we see the graphs of almost everything from co2 concentration in the atmosphere, to the amount of chicken being produced per year, all going up exponentially.

We are not going back to horses voluntarily. We are not going to stop using hot water voluntarily. Other than the fractional changes engineering will bring us, such as going away from internal combustion and toward renewable energy generation, carbon emissions are going to continue to skyrocket as a direct result of the number of users. Or, population. It's impossible to make an argument against that fact. Even if we double our efficiency, when we double the population in 20 years (which we most likely will) all of those gains will be lost, and we'll be right back at present emergency emission levels.

[The2ndWheel]

71. I agree with what you're saying

Other than one thing being the most important part. We don't have this many people without a modern lifestyle. We don't have a modern lifestyle without this many people. If we have fewer people, we'll just have different problems. As was said in another post in this thread, all of our institutions are built and sustained on more and more people contributing to them. We won't really solve anything with renewable energy instead of oil, we'll just have different problems. We haven't solved too many problems with every upgrade in the resources we use, we've just increased the scale and number of problems that we have to deal with.

[Nihil]

80. In other words ...

> all of our institutions are built and sustained on more and more people
> contributing to them

... all of our institutions are pyramid schemes that primarily benefitted
the first few "generations" of people - i.e., those who set them up in the
first place then subsequently took the "money" and "ran".

Everyone else just makes up the lowest tier, the mugs who end up paying
for the people above them but who get caught when the inevitable collapse
happens.

:-(