Energy, Population Arithmetic

Finally, somebody is talking about my thesis on the population growth, resource shortages and the peak population. The energy deposits such as the coal, oil so far found, forecasted to be found and all to be farm raised will be depleted at the current rate within mere 30-50 years with the current population trends. Whether the big oil wants to sell you more oil or coal or ethanol, or whether people can build dams on every little river to produce electricity to drive their cars and light up their cities, the population growth is not sustainable in terms of land and resource usage.

The economic models will obviously fail and unfortunately for those of you younger than 40 will likely see the failure, if you live about 30-50 yrs more. If the major equity indices get dominated by only the material and energy components due to their rising market caps by then, we will likely see an enormous rise in these indices due to the inflation, but they will hardly give the right picture about the terminal state of the economy. While the indices will reach to their highest peak, say Dow 100k, the economic activity will peak right before, just like it did in 2000, 2007 and during many peaks...

Thanks whoever posted them first (total 1hr);

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7
part 8

BTW, the fossil or carbon based energy resources will be depleted before they cause a severe climate change, imho.

That's probably why many are saying the PTB are planning a massive reduction in population:

Video 1
Video 2

War, famine, disease would all play a role.

Oh No! I only posted them to talk about something that bothered me for so long. I don't think this is all planned, actually I think this is completely unplanned and in fact denied. We are changing the climate, the growth in the population is still going quite fast, we are denying the fact that we are running out of fossil fuels, we are not taking enough action to conserve, we are not making much effort to recycle, we are still trying to build the bigger and better bubbles, the list goes on. It is just convenient to blame to a shadow power, but it is still not the solution because the current growth patterns are not sustainable. I don't see anyone who can contain 10-12B hungry people fighting each other. We must adjust our living standards and expectations to the flattening portion of the S-curve. BTW, the market seems sure like it wants to blow off next week. The current cycle low is resembling more and more to a parabolic action now. I would think 1350 is next...

I'm not an Engineer - but I am a geologist with degrees as well in chemistry, physics and mathematics. The fossil fuel cause for "global warming" has always puzzled me. The earth has both warmed and cooled many many many many times in the geologic past - long before man walked the face of the earth. And to blame any warming trend on the use of fossil fuels is just fantasy. Granted, isolated pockets of the world that are densely populated, have air pollution problems that that does not calculated to a total affect on the entire envelop of the earths atmosphere - as a matter of fact, any air measurements projected into the total envelop of the earths atmosphere, dilute by so many orders of magnitude that no measurable affect can be detected. How on earth are they going to harness the CO2 emissions from Mammoth Mountain? As a species, we certainly could do a lot of other thing to cause our own extinction - like over population beyond the ability of the natural resources to support us as a species. We have only been around as homo-sapiens for about 4 million years. The dinosaurs were around 200 million years - the cockroaches have gotten it right. When the cockroaches over populate they eat each other. Mary Anne

I'm not an Engineer - but I am a geologist with degrees as well in chemistry, physics and mathematics. The fossil fuel cause for "global warming" has always puzzled me. The earth has both warmed and cooled many many many many times in the geologic past - long before man walked the face of the earth. And to blame any warming trend on the use of fossil fuels is just fantasy. Granted, isolated pockets of the world that are densely populated, have air pollution problems that that does not calculated to a total affect on the entire envelop of the earths atmosphere - as a matter of fact, any air measurements projected into the total envelop of the earths atmosphere, dilute by so many orders of magnitude that no measurable affect can be detected. How on earth are they going to harness the CO2 emissions from Mammoth Mountain? As a species, we certainly could do a lot of other thing to cause our own extinction - like over population beyond the ability of the natural resources to support us as a species. We have only been around as homo-sapiens for about 4 million years. The dinosaurs were around 200 million years - the cockroaches have gotten it right. When the cockroaches over populate they eat each other.
Mary Anne

I think you have it right...but wow talk about the minority...to me it's all about population...the fact oil is abundant, it's just getting harder to go after is all....(just my opinion)...we have not been able to keep up with the rapid population explosion to easily produce and drill for the oil...

we have not been able to keep up with the rapid population explosion to easily produce and drill for the oil...

There is an economical limit to this process, would you run 100 miles to get a piece of bread everyday? You would probably collapse by the second day, it is the same. We will not be able to mine until the last drop of oil, it just won't make any sense. It will cost more and consume more energy...

How on earth are they going to harness the CO2 emissions from Mammoth Mountain? As a species, we certainly could do a lot of other thing to cause our own extinction - like over population beyond the ability of the natural resources to support us as a species.

Mary Anne, although this is also my logic, when the brightest minds of this society working at NAASC, NAS ring the alarm signals, I tend to believe them somewhat that somethings are probably changing.

The nature and the biodiversity are already disappearing. The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years, amazing isn't it? The amount of fossil fuels consumed is doubling every 10 years apparently!

But until it peaks! I believe it will happen within the next couple of decades. Most of the projections related to the planet's warming run for a 100 years forecast or so, I doubt that the current economical consumption of the fossil fuels will last that long...

People will be simply forced to use only nuclear energy at some point...

Where do people get this garbage on depletion ? Its bogus. Ive been in the energy business for over 20 years. Every year since 1970, we've ended the year with more proven reserves than the year started. Its a fact. Not myth. Not conjecture. So if you believe in the organic decay myth, you wouldn't believe in the fact that old fields left for dead years ago, now have quite a bit of oil. Huh ? Yep. Its true. You have to dig hard (no pun intended) to get to the truth, because as colonel jack would say "you can't handle the truth." The cost of a barrel is mostly due to the huge drop in the dollar. The price doesn't reflect the fundamentals of digging, extracting, exporting the goop.

I'm not an Engineer - but I am a geologist with degrees as well in chemistry, physics and mathematics. The fossil fuel cause for "global warming" has always puzzled me. The earth has both warmed and cooled many many many many times in the geologic past - long before man walked the face of the earth. And to blame any warming trend on the use of fossil fuels is just fantasy. Granted, isolated pockets of the world that are densely populated, have air pollution problems that that does not calculated to a total affect on the entire envelop of the earths atmosphere - as a matter of fact, any air measurements projected into the total envelop of the earths atmosphere, dilute by so many orders of magnitude that no measurable affect can be detected. How on earth are they going to harness the CO2 emissions from Mammoth Mountain? As a species, we certainly could do a lot of other thing to cause our own extinction - like over population beyond the ability of the natural resources to support us as a species. We have only been around as homo-sapiens for about 4 million years. The dinosaurs were around 200 million years - the cockroaches have gotten it right. When the cockroaches over populate they eat each other.
Mary Anne

Mary, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that it is a fantasy that burning of fossil fuels can add enough greenhouse gases to the earth’s atmosphere to influence temperature. It is well known that carbon dioxide has increased to about 380 ppm from about 280 ppm over the last 100 years, and this increase results primarily from the increased burning of fossil fuels occurring during this period. Although reductions in vegetation due to increasing population and land development, particularly loss of tropical rainforests have also contributed. Industrial emissions of more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide have also occurred during this period (e.g., nitrous oxide, methane, many organic chemicals, etc.). I realize many people prefer to believe we can emit any pollutant and gas we want into the atmosphere without any consequences (chemicals that affect health and/or climate), but that is simply not true.

http://www.epa.gov/c...fq/science.html

It is true that in earth’s history the planet has undergone wider fluctuations in climate and temperature than we are now experiencing. The earth has had a very stable climate for the last 10-12,000 years, and it is no coincidence that during this period of relative climate stability human populations have thrived and increased from thousands of people to billions of people. Humans did not do so good in prior periods of wider climatic/tgemperature fluctuations. How do you think billions of humans competing for scarce resources are going to do in a future period of wider climatic fluctuations?

As a geologist, you probably know that this recent 10-12,000 year period is called the Holocene Epoch. Some are saying that the change in climate due to man’s activities that is now beginning should be called the Anthropocene Epoch, that will be characterized by wider climatic fluctuations caused by the activities of billions of people.

Some don’t want to hear this, they are in various stages of denial, but I agree with arbman that the future will be characterized by increasing competition for resources by the increasing populations of people in a less stable climate, and that this situation is not sustainable over the long-term. Do humans have the ability to prevent this? Yes, they probably do, but human nature being what it is, will humans control their activities?

Unfortunately I expect that humans will not manage their behavior to avoid the painful results that will accrue from the unsustainable system billions of people are creating (i.e., painful results in the form of dislocations, sea level rises, crop failures, famine, war, disease, …). Humans that compete for scarce resources tend to want to fight over scarcities. With increasing billions of people in a less stable climate what will result? This will play out over a long period of time, and unfortunately it will be our grandchildren, great grandchildren, …. who have to deal with the worst of the mess we are leaving. I don’t expect extinction of human species, but just a tougher, more painful world to live in.

I agree that it is much easier to deny reality and not change our actions, and complain about those people who want to avoid the mess we are heading towards.

Where do people get this garbage on depletion ?

Its bogus.

Ive been in the energy business for over 20 years.

Every year since 1970, we've ended the year with more proven reserves than the year started. Its a fact. Not myth. Not conjecture.

So if you believe in the organic decay myth, you wouldn't believe in the fact that old fields left for dead years ago, now have quite a bit of oil. Huh ? Yep. Its true. You have to dig hard (no pun intended) to get to the truth, because as colonel jack would say "you can't handle the truth."

The cost of a barrel is mostly due to the huge drop in the dollar. The price doesn't reflect the fundamentals of digging, extracting, exporting the goop.

What if the time is 11:57?