tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24279830.post6643191291324287624..comments2023-09-10T09:42:14.978-04:00Comments on Fears and Frets: I call on America to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production by July 17, 2018Rionn Fears Malechemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05998730706323172918noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24279830.post-65989269861946222092008-07-21T20:22:00.000-04:002008-07-21T20:22:00.000-04:00Wait, even better. The US used about a quadrillion...Wait, even better. The US used about <A HREF="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/US_historical_energy_consumption.PNG" REL="nofollow">a quadrillion BTUs/year in 1840</A>, and had <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg" REL="nofollow">about 17 million people</A>. Now, it's using about 100 times as much energy with 18 times as many people. So, not linear at all, really.<BR/><BR/>If we used as much energy per capita as Brazilians, we could get by with the amount of nuclear, hydroelectric and wood (which doesn't seem to have changed much, actually) we use today.Rionn Fears Malechemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998730706323172918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24279830.post-75530701764683254742008-07-21T20:13:00.000-04:002008-07-21T20:13:00.000-04:00A friend writes...[I]n his 1970 Nobel prize lectur...A friend writes...<BR/>[I]n his 1970 Nobel prize lecture, [Paul] Samuelson said:<BR/>There really is nothing more pathetic than to have an economist or a retired engineer try to force analogies between the concepts of physics and the concepts of economics"<BR/>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1970/samuelson-lecture.pdf<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that the size of civilization goes as energy consumption. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones" REL="nofollow">According to Wikipedia</A>, in 1804 we had 1 billion people, and have septupled since then. By the beginning of the 19th Century, the overwhelming majority of people were "civilized," as we have been for the past 10,000 years, but we were using less than a seventh as much energy. Cardiff was still a small town then! Brazil uses about <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Energy_consumption_versus_GDP.png" REL="nofollow">a sixth as much energy per capita</A> as the US, and is still civilized.Rionn Fears Malechemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998730706323172918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24279830.post-13848803779281696822008-07-18T11:22:00.000-04:002008-07-18T11:22:00.000-04:00So that actually turns out to be fairly easy to es...So that actually turns out to be fairly easy to estimate - uh, I think.<BR/><BR/>Okay here's the basis. The size of civilization goes as energy consumption. Say a 60% reduction, then a 60% reduction in civilization. Assume then that the size as civilization roughly scales as population, then you get a 60% reduction in population.<BR/><BR/>So this is where I like phrases like "0th order estimate", but I think the point that it a "-1th order estimate" of it being an awfully big number is likely highly accurate. <BR/><BR/>But I'm not sure I understand your point about there being a distinction between self-imposed and externally imposed starvation. To me, it seems that either way, inflation sky-rockets, and that just sounds globally bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24279830.post-7784151061393369622008-07-18T10:52:00.000-04:002008-07-18T10:52:00.000-04:00...which the administration of which he was Vice P......which the administration of which he was Vice President contributed to.<BR/><BR/>Remember after the Supreme Court turned the nation over to our malefactors, Al Gore disappeared and grew a beard. Those were probably his 'impossible situation' days. After all, if we are in an impossible situation, what would the point of making public pronouncements about it be? Ah... I mean for Al Gore.<BR/><BR/>"Global Planetary Starvation," or GPS, in the first case wouldn't affect everyone -- it would in the second. And, what if we just spend 60 % of our resources replacing fossil-based power production? What does the starvation balance look like then?Rionn Fears Malechemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998730706323172918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24279830.post-12598959862260049422008-07-18T10:36:00.000-04:002008-07-18T10:36:00.000-04:00Gore is crazy. He might as well ask for global pla...Gore is crazy. He might as well ask for global planetary starvation, as that is what will entail if we either shut down all fossil-based power production, or spend all our resources on replacing it.<BR/><BR/>Of course we also face global planetary starvation from climate change. I guess I'd just find it way more refreshing if Gore acknowledged that we've gotten ourselves into an impossible situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com