What is our goal? To safely provide enough energy for the current and future population to allow for development and enjoyment of a lifestyle demanding as much energy as Americans now are privileged enough (and wasteful enough) to permit themselves.
This is 3,000 quadrillion BTUs. That’s how much energy a population of 9.5 billion humans (the probable population in 2075) would use if they used the same energy per capita as we do in the U.S. (327 billion BTUs per person right now). Note that most of Europe gets by on far less, and they have a pretty good lifestyle, so 3,000 is certainly an upper limit, not a conservative estimate.
Just to state the obvious, we probably cannot and certainly don’t want to do this with fossil fuels–not unless we want the world to look like China’s most polluted cities. We’ll certainly continue to use them–but they’ll get hard enough to find and prepare that they’ll be much more valuable commodities than they are today, and we’ll be using renewables shortly because they’re cheaper and easier to produce.
Last year renewable energy provided us with 52 quads. That seems like a very long ways from 3,000. But thanks to the miracle of compound growth and endless innovation, to reach 3,000 quads from renewables by 2100 only needs an annual growth rate of 4.6%. To do it by 2050 would require heroic growth–about 10% per year.
Is this feasible? The workhorses of renewable power right now are hydroelectric power and combined heat and power (also known as cogeneration). Hydroelectric power is set to double over the next 20 years, and CHP is growing so fast that nobody can keep track of it.
The renewables that get all the press–wind, solar and biofuels–have grown strongly over the past decade, but from such a small base that one has to wonder if they can continue at the same rate. I certainly think that wind has peaked–at least temporarily, due to the fall in the price of its natural competitor, natural gas. I think biofuels have a long ways to go in terms of fourth generation algae, but ethanol and biodiesel can fill in for the moment.
My long term bet is on solar power, which is dropping in price and spreading in terms of deployment and possibilities. From simple solar thermal for home water heating to complex concentrated solar power stations, solar is spreading like wildfire.
But for all the possibilities, the total energy from renewables has only grown 2% per year since 2007, in a favorable investment climate and with all the good will in the world.
We’re going to have to do better, which is why I’m certain we’ll have to look at nuclear.
And while we’re doing so, we can certainly look at the other elephant in the room–energy efficiency, or ‘negawatts’ as Bush the Elder termed them.
We currently waste half the fuel we burn in producing electricity, and there are endless opportunities to improve energy efficiency in our homes, offices, manufacturing plants and in the appliances and machinery we stick inside them. We could save billions and reduce power consumption greatly by being a bit more diligent in this regard.
For the moment, the final score is that renewables can and probably will play an important part in our energy future–but they won’t be enough on their own. Nuclear power and improving efficiency will have to step in to get us over the hump.
But note the above–we don’t need to invent a new technology or completely turn our economies on their heads. We just need to keep doing what we’re doing, take it seriously, and trust the innovation engine inherent in free market societies to do the job.
And we’ll get there.
3000 Quads 
BP focuses on energy intensity (energy input per unit GDP) improvement and convergence as a major new trend:
http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagina.php?id_mailing=244&toegang=9188905e74c28e489b44e954ec0b9bca&id=3470
The financial self-exsanguination on which renewables depend will not affect these trends, notwithstanding even the token linear extrapolation of current trends used in BP’s chart. As you note, “the total energy from renewables has only grown 2% per year since 2007, in a favorable investment climate and with all the good will in the world.” The good will and investment climate are rapidly turning sour. Reality Bites. Hard.
Hi Brian,
Yes, well after BP abandoned solar in pursuit of biofuels, that change in emphasis is not exactly a surprise.
As for your comment on investment in reneables, you might be a bit surprised to learn that it jumped by 40% in 2011, according to Price Waterhouse Coopers. The link is here: http://www.pv-tech.org/news/pwc_report_investment_in_renewables_jumped_by_40_in_2011
” Investment in ‘new generation’ technologies – including solar, wind and biomass – leapt from US$38.2 billion in 2010 to a record US$53.5 billion in 2011, according to the report. The massive increase is due to a variety of factors, the most noteworthy of which are falling solar prices and the change in attitude towards nuclear power following the Fukushima crisis in March 2011.”
I don’t think anything’s turning sour, actually.
Silkworm,we are not talking about the scnciee, but about the politics, about how the denialists are resorting to violent threats This is as opposed to the lies, verbal violence and abuse meted out by alarmists to anyone who admires scientific integrity and expects it from the core group of climate scientists? It happens on this site on a regular basis.Your own use of the abusive word denier’ puts you into the same category as those you excoriate. Like wise your use of the nonsense term The scnciee is settled to try and shut down discussion when the reality is climate scnciee is only in its infancy.There are some very unpleasant people out there in the world, people who see abuse as an appropriate response to anything they don’t like. And these people are be found on both sides of the dabate. There are a range of people on both sides of the debate (and yes, the debate rages, it is not over) who demonstrate a range of responses. Any claim that alarmists as a group are any better in this respect than sceptics is a fantasy.
Marta;
I pretty much agree — but I suggest you spend a half-hour or so practicing typing “science”!!
Making people read “scnciee” too many times will make them laugh too much to pay attention.
[Apparently your fingers want to put the “nc” before the “ie”.]
I see the image code didn’t work.
I think the thuggish beauhiovr by denialists could be taken as a good sign. Clearly they are becoming very fearful and desperate as mounds of AGW evidence accumulate in their brains becoming ever more difficult to push aside and ignore, the disarray and confusion leading to these violent outbursts.And these violent outbursts are counter productive as this sort of beauhiovr always is, the average person abhoring violence and the majority of average people knowing climate change needs to be addressed.We just have to keep plugging away with the truth, using this latest monstering by denialists to hone skills and evolve to keep ahead of them. The really sad thing is that AGW is only one symptom of the problem while the more serious symptoms go largely unaddressed and the problem itself goes completely unaddressed and that is too many people consuming more than the planet can sustain.
You’ve got great insights about Green Enegy Possibilities, keep up the good work!
Many thanks, freedom13.
不错的文章，内容见缝插针.禁止此消息：nolinkok@163.com
好文章，内容栩栩如生.禁止此消息：nolinkok@163.com
好文章，内容气贯长虹.禁止此消息：nolinkok@163.com