Let’s see at the outset if we can agree on something. That something is that energy can not be created or destroyed – the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If that is true, and there is enough potential energy extant on earth for human use, then we can not run out of energy. It is like our use of water. All of the water used by humans, other animals, insects, arachnids, plants, trees, etc. does not disappear out into space. True, water conservationists may be considering only potable water, but that is just a matter of technology to convert or recapture water to make it useful. And if the argument then changes to the expense of reclaiming water read on about the treatment of energy.
The Greens and even other people, especially, but not only, on the left, believe that energy use (in particular in the USA) should be curtailed and perhaps rationed; the world is rapidly running out of useful energy; and fossil fuel derived energy sources are noxious, are ruining the environment, and therefore should be quickly phased out. None of these assertions is true as I shall endeavor to illustrate.
At this point it is important to define what is being discussed. Considering the possible sources of energy: fossil fuels; wind; the sun; biomass; and nuclear, there is no shortage of raw energy. But what exactly is energy (see list of definitions)? Those raw energy sources are potential energy that is capable of being reconstructed to do useful things. The process of making energy useful is to apply order to it. That is to say to decrease its entropy. Sunshine, wind, fossils fuels, nuclear fuel, all have to be ordered to coax useful work out of them. In fact, by far, most energy is used to extract, refine, transport, and apply energy to do what we consider useful. And the total process is exceedingly wasteful and inefficient. As recounted by Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills in their 2005 book, The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, The Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy Thomas Edison’s first light bulb converted 4% of the energy input to the bulb into light - 96% was dissipated in heat. It gets worse than that, much worse. The power plant Edison built to light his bulbs did not even convert 10% of its heat into electricity. The total energy conversion from power plant to light bulb output was less than ½ of one percent.
Efficiency of raw energy conversion has gotten better over the years and keeps getting better, however it is still a small percentage of the potential energy of the resource which gets converted into useful work. Most of the energy which is wasted is in the form of heat. Fortunately this dissipated heat is a small percentage of the total heat which reaches the earth from the sun during daylight and is then radiated back into space at night. According to Huber & Mills, an estimated 5 million Quads (see definitions) of solar energy reach the earth per year – 10,000 times as much as humans consume in the form of fossil fuels, crops, and wood. So no, in case you were worried, we are not turning the earth into a gigantic hot forge by our inefficient use of energy.
Over the past 30 years, appliances, air-conditioners, refrigerators, light bulbs, electronics, etc. became 30-50% more efficient, yet in the USA we burn an additional 400 million tons of coal per year. Increasing the efficiency of energy generation increases not decreases the use of energy. Tremendous improvements in efficiency create more demand, not less. Our main use of energy is not lighting, locomotion, or cooling. It is to extract, refine, process, and purify energy itself. And the more efficient we become at refining energy the more of it we want to use. Say’s Law [John Baptiste Say (1767-1832)] states that additional supply creates additional demand. Collective wants are insatiable. In order to lower consumption it would be necessary to lower efficiency. I do not know anyone who is in favor of that.
In the United States 40% of total raw energy is supplied by oil and 60% by coal, gas, uranium, and hydroelectric. For electricity, 50% is supplied by coal; 20% by uranium; 18% by natural gas; 0.27% wind; 0.013% solar and the rest primarily by hydro and oil. After the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979 pundits declared that was the end of civilian nuclear power. The Chernobyl accident seven years later confirmed it in their minds. Since 1979 the amount of electricity generated by uranium increased from 11% to 20% of the total today. No new reactors were built in the intervening years, except the ones already under construction, however these new ones and the existing ones were made more efficient and were run more hours per day.
Electricity is responsible for 60% of our GDP and 85% of our growth in energy demand since 1980. In the next several decades hybrid automobiles combining electrically powered batteries and gasoline engines with fully electric drive trains will increase the relative utilization of electricity. As it is now, less than 20% of the cost of owning and operating automobiles is due to the cost of gasoline (so why all the grumbling and whining over the price of gas?) and with the future hybrids the cost of powering these vehicles will be even less. The cost of electricity for automobile propulsion versus the cost of gasoline is 1/3 for electricity generated by coal and 1/10 if generated by uranium.
If the Greens and their sympathizers do not give up their unrelenting and unrealistic opposition to oil and gas exploration and refining and especially uranium utilization then this is going to happen: As the increasingly efficient and increased use of electricity eventuates, the United States will burn more and more coal. No politician, either Democrat or Republican (no others count), will be responsible for the lights going out as was experienced in California under Governor “Gray Skies” Davis (Davis did not cause the problem which was building years before he became governor, but he was in office at the critical time and he contributed to the problem rather than the solution so he paid the price). Uranium is by far the densest (most mass and potential energy per unit volume) and most economic form of raw energy, is readily available, and can be made completely safe. Let the fanatics explain why it should not be more widely used as a raw energy source.
Is the United States an energy consumption hog? We consume about 100 Quads of raw energy per year today up from 7 in 1910 and 35 in 1950. The USA consumes 43% of the world’s gasoline, 26% of the electricity, 25% of the petroleum, 25% of natural gas, and 23 % of hard coal. We also produce 25% of the world’s goods and services so our consumption is not out of line with our productivity. Despite what the effete Europeans might think America spreads democracy in the world (a good thing according to sensible people), provides military defense (also a good thing), feeds people around the world out of proportion to America’s population, and pioneers many key inventions and engineering technologies. This would not be possible if we were burning dung as a primary fuel. As countries become more industrialized and more productive they consume more raw energy. From 2002 to 2004 the USA used 700,000 more bbls. of oil per day; during this same time period China’s increase was 1.47 million bbls. per day. In contrast to the 2 gigawatt Hoover Dam on the Colorado River the Chinese built an 18 gigawatt dam on the Yangtze River.
Is it true that the more fossil fuels are used up the less there are available and the more expensive they become? Intuitively it would seem so, yet this has not been true historically. Global oil production has increased from 66.8 million bbls./day in 2002 to 69.2 in 2003, 72.5 in 2004, and is at a still higher rate in 2005. In 1980 some experts predicted that the price of oil would be $200/bbl. by 2003. There were only about 30 billions bbls. of proven reserves in the USA in 1979. Since then 67 billion bbls. of crude have been produced. Recently what was described as the largest onshore oil field in the last 30 years in the lower 48 states was discovered in Utah. Even though the history of such discoveries is that inevitably the reserves are initially overestimated, then underestimated with more data, and finally with still more data more accurately estimated, these discoveries are typical when there are incentives.
The price of crude oil has remained remarkably stable over the years despite increased costs of extraction. Wells which are drilled through 10,000 ft. of water, 20,000 ft. of rock vertically, and 30,000 ft. of rock horizontally have not materially raised the cost of crude, inflation adjusted, from wells drilled in 100 ft. of water in 1954 and unit costs are less than the 69 ft. well drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859. According to Huber & Mills production costs of the Statfjord oil field in the North Sea are not much higher that the Spindletop field of southeast Texas discovered in 1901. Even though the popular perception is that recent gasoline prices in the USA were at historic high levels, the inflation adjusted prices in 1981 were at equal or higher levels. And to promote cleaner burning, the various gasoline additives mandated by different states have increased gasoline costs in the interim.
On the order of 5 million Quads per year of solar energy reach the earth. Worldwide coal reserves are 200,000 Quads and oil shale at least 10,000 Quads. There are 3.5 trillion bbls. of recoverable heavy oil in tar sands in Canada and Venezuela – at 80 million bbls./day consumption this would represent a 100 year supply. Global consumption is 345 Quads of fossil fuels (100 in the USA) per year. Given these huge reserves of raw energy along with renewable sources such as wind and hydroelectric as well as nuclear, one could realistically conclude that energy sources are essentially infinite.
Is the earth’s environment slowly (some would say not so slowly) being degraded by humanity’s inexorable drive to extract and consume vast amount of energy? Well, what has happened in the past? London, England has more hours of clear skies than it did a century and more ago when great quantities of soot were spewed into the atmosphere by coal burning fireplaces and furnaces; Los Angles is less polluted now than it was in the past few decades; and Pittsburg used to be called the “Smoky City” – no more.
According to Huber & Wells in 1840 it required 6000 cords of wood to produce 1000 tons of iron. As late as 1910 some 27% of all U.S. farmland was devoted to feeding horses used for transportation. Feeding the organic transportation system in 1910 required far more land than we have since seized for oil pipelines, refineries, and wells. The lower 48 states had a bit over 1 billion acres of forests when the first Europeans settled in New England. By 1920 that figure shrank to about ¾ of a billion acres. In recent years trees have been replanted at a rate of 3 million acres per year. Growing up on a farm in Michigan in the 1940’s I planted thousands of various pine seedlings myself. For the first time in history a Western nation has reversed the decline of its forests. If current trends continue America could eventually return to the levels of forestation last seen by the Pilgrims.
The British Antarctic Survey out of Cambridge, England in a recently published report based on satellite images between 1992 and 2003 stated that the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice and thickened at an average rate of 1.8 cm. per year – enough to reduce the ocean’s rise by 0.12 mm. per year. This region comprises circa 85% of Antarctic’s total ice volume. Does this prove “Global Cooling” is the order of the day? No, but it does not exactly support the theory that the earth is becoming an oven either.
What could reverse this inexorable drive to consume more and more energy? Not an exhaustion of raw energy as has been discussed in detail, but rather a drop in world population – something that most assuredly will happen, although not soon.
Currently the world population is approximately 6½ billion. Even though the worldwide fertility rate has been declining for the last 50 years, the forecast for the world population is 8 to 9 billion by 2050. How can there be an increasing population with a decreasing fertility rate? The answers are: 1.) Even if the fertility rate is falling, if it is still above the replacement rate then the population will increase. 2.) There is a quarter of a century or so delay (called momentum) between births and the age of the women giving birth. 3.) Although fewer children are being born the ones that are born are living longer.
As explained by Ben J. Wattenberg in his 2004 book, Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future an ongoing United Nations study on demographics as well as the U.S. Bureau of Statistics postulate that the world population will be 2 to 3 billion by the year 2300 almost back to what it was in 1950 at a little over 2½ billion. That is a long time period for making projections, yet the trends are there. Of course conditions could change and therefore change the outcome, but it seems to me more likely that some catastrophic event such as a deadly pandemic disease or a nuclear holocaust would lower populations even further rather than raising population numbers by God knows what.
The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. In 1950 the world rate was 5.0; in 2000 it was 2.7 and was previously predicted to be 2.0 by 2050. The new number is 1.85 for 2050 and that number may drop to 1.7 when still newer estimates come out in 2008 which may mean that the world’s population will peak before 2050 and not reach the 8 to 9 billion figure.
The fertility rate in the less developed world was 2.9 in 2000 and is forecast to be 2.0 by 2050. It is a commonplace that the fertility rate drops as a population gains economically. In a wonderfully sardonic commentary in the 1950’s Bergen Evans told the story of the man who was worried that the black population in the USA was increasing faster than whites. Evans told him that yes the black birth rate was higher than whites, but as blacks gained in economic and social status their birth rate would decline – thus mixed are all blessings! This current decline in third world countries is largely unrelated to economic development, but may be due to what is called diffusion (the spread of communications). People may not have yet experienced too much in the way of increased economic prosperity, but they are not dumb, they know what is happening in the developed world, partly as the result of smaller families. Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico even though they currently have more than replacement population increase rates, have declining fertility rates. Wouldn’t that be the supreme irony if, at some future time, the United States offered incentives for Mexicans to come here while the Mexican government tried mightily to keep them home!
Many European countries are undergoing population declines now as are Japan and South Korea. Europe as a whole, which has a fertility rate of 1.4, down from 2.6 in 1950, is predicted to decline by 100 million by 2050. Russia alone is suffering an 800,000 per year decline in population. Japan’s fertility rate was 2.8 in 1950 and 1.3 in 2005 with a projected 17 million population decline by 2050. South Korea’s rate was 1.1 in 2005. The South Koreans have a real and growing problem with population decline, but are not expected to drop to zero by 2050 – unless the N. K. Commies launch nukes.
The fertility rate of the USA was 3.5 in 1960 at the height of the “baby boom” and is 2.0 today. Because of robust immigration and momentum, by contrast with Europe, the United States which has a current population of almost 300 million is projected to have a population of 400 million by 2050. Compared to historical standards we are not currently being overrun with immigrants. Early in the 20th century our population had 14% foreign born, 5% in 1970, 10% in 2005, and a projected 13% in 2050. By the 2nd half of the twenty-first century there are apt to be three great powers in the world: the United States with a 400+ million population and China and India with circa 1 billion each. Given their population declines and their quasi socialistic societies the European countries will have to be content learning to be 3rd rate powers. A caveat in the prediction about India taking her place as one of the three great powers is given by Adlai E. Stevenson, former U.S. presidential candidate in the 1950’s, having predicted that it takes 50 years for a country to industrialize. India gained independence in 1948 so by 1998 they should have been industrialized. As of 2005 they still are not, although they have made big strides – especially in the last 15 years, so perhaps his time frame needs to be stretched a mite.
DEFINITONS
1st Law of Thermodynamics – The energy going into a system, minus the energy coming out of a system, equals the change in the energy stored in the system. Stated more simply the Law says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics – Heat will, on its own, flow from a hot object to a cold object. An alternative definition is that the state of any closed system inevitably decays from more order to less order.
Energy - The name given to the ability to do work. Potential Energy is possessed by a body due to its position or form. Kinetic Energy is energy possessed by a body because of its motion.
Entropy – The entropy of a substance increases whenever the energy it possesses decreases. Entropy is also used as a measure of the disorder of a substance – the greater the disorder, the greater the entropy.
BTU (British Thermal Unit) – Heat required to raise one lb. of water one degree Fahrenheit.
Quad – One quadrillion (10¹) BTU’s.
Horsepower – The power required to raise 550 lbs. 1 ft. in 1 sec.
Force - Force is a push or pull on an object or body.
Work - The amount of work is determined by the strength of the force used and the distance through which it moved.
Power - Power measures the rate at which work is done.
Watt – A unit used to measure power. An electric devise uses 1 watt when 1 volt of electric potential drives 1 ampere of electric current through it.
Gigawatt – One billion watts.
Calorie – Quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree centigrade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment