Writing in Standpoint, a smart new center-right British magazine, Tim Congdon explains why the last 80 years have been an absolute anomaly in terms of development, and why they cannot be repeated. Excerpt:
Is audacity the better part of economic forecasting? In an essay entitled Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, published in 1930 as share prices were tumbling all over the world, John Maynard Keynes conjectured that "mankind is solving its economic problem". He predicted "that the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is today".As far as Britain is concerned, Keynes will be right. Consumption per head today is about five times higher than it was in 1930. If the next 22 years enjoy the same rate of material progress, our "standard of life" in 2030 will be roughly eight times that of our grand parents.
But what can we say about our grand children? Keynes' essay was silent on one theme that we cannot avoid. As he was writing, it was not only stock markets that were falling month by month. The prices of all commodities were also sliding, driven by over-production and falling demand. Shortages of energy and basic materials did not seem possible, even looking ahead to 2030 for one's grandchildren and great-grandchildren after a huge multiplication of output in the intervening century. Anyone proposing that "the earth is running out of resources" would have been regarded as daft.
The central problem in repeating Keynes' exercise is that today the resource constraint has started to become compelling.
The bottom line?
It is inconceivable that the world's oil output can rise 17 times between now and 2075 or 2108. Debates rage about whether the earth's remaining oil reservoir is 1,500bn barrels or 3,000bn barrels, and about whether world oil production is peaking now at 30bn barrels a year or will peak in around 2025 at 40bn barrels a year. But no one with any knowledge of the subject -- absolutely no one -- believes that the earth could produce 17 times as much oil as today, about 1,500bn barrels a year.
Read the whole thing. And if you like, read the original 1930 Keynes essay.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
One small technical point, Mr. Stirling:
There's only "plenty of uranium" if we use breeder technology to convert it into plutonium. There's not enough U-235 to keep us going longer than a few decades. Of course, thorium (which is extremely common) can be bred into fissionable uranium-233.
I'm strongly in favor of nukes, too; if you run the numbers there isn't any other way at all to generate enough energy without blanketing the country in coal smoke. But we need to be clear about what kind of nukes we need, because if there's one thing that gets an anti-nuke keyed up more than another nuclear power plant, it's producing more plutonium.
Did'nt nukes meet their maker in the marketplace 30 years ago? And is American management even capable of running them (aka 3 mile island).
Even something idiot proof can be circumvented by inept management.
There's also uranium in seawater. See here:
peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/207-uranium-from-seawater-part-1.html
peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/208-uranium-from-seawater-part-2.html
npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/132004/appendix8.html
Note that this supply is also refreshed by 114k tons/yr (*), via river runoff.
(*) River runoff rate of 1.2E6 m3/s, and seawater uranium concentration of 3.2E-6 kg/m3 taken from Hoffert et al, "Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability", Science vol. 298, p. 985.
Mr. Stirling:
Don't forget about solar power satellites. Your colleague Dr. J. Pournelle was talking about them back in the 70s. From what I understand, it wouldn't take a great deal of new science to get the first ones up and working, just some advances in engineering.
The only question with that, from where I sit, is whether the Greenie-Weenie Eco-Freakos in Our Nation's Capital will let us make them ourselves, or whether we'll have to buy our power from the ones launched by the Red Chinese.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
P.S. Loved the Islander books. Any plans for new ones ?
Sigh. Mr. Stirling hits and misses...
yes, besides the obvious factual errors...
such as "We get most of our energy from -coal-."...
well, we get about half of our -electricity- from coal...
I don't see any coal powered cars and airplanes...
and not many coal heated houses either...
but... more than that...
there seems to be no knowledge of EROEI...
energy return on energy invested...
where a high ratio allows for economic expansion...
and below 1:1 there is no sense in trying to get energy resources...
so...
it could be suggested that a site such as theoildrum be investigated so that persons can learn the basics of EROEI...
it's an essential concept for understanding 21st century energy...
and...
though I'm not sold on Peak Oil doom and gloom...
it seems that the future is not required to be prosperous just because the recent past has been...
I see it as an undetermined race...
a race for scientists and engineers to produce the alternative energy and the nationwide infrastructure...
before there aren't enough fossil fuels to enable this production...
yes, there's plenty of brains to figure this out...
but there needs to be net positive energy sources to build with...
so...
it may depend less on brainpower and more on EROEI...
perhaps Mr. Stirling can give his take on EROEI...
and why declining net world energy is no hindrance to solutions...
he paints a sunny picture...
is it because he doesn't know about declining EROEI?
that's a cloud on the horizon...
prosperity faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive God...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.