A big problem for the next 100 years - energy demands

Beth spoke of the latest theory-du-jour in Population Modelling for
Earth -
that we will in fact stabilize at some population level. 11-20 Billion.
20
Billion would be about 4x as many people as we have now. If the increase
was
across the board, that'd put Canada with 120 Million - we could easily
do
that. That'd put the USA with around 1.1 Billion or so. That's kinda
getting
tight. China and India wouldn't bear thinking about. That pressure of
population DENSITY could easily drive exoduses from those parts of the
world
- where to? To another Terran country? If possible. If not, offworld in
search of lebensraum and resources. 

Beth talks about resource depletion being something we have to manage. I
just watched a Nova program on PBS about this energy future of ours. Not
good at all. Efficiency has gone up a lot lately (heading towards some
long
term maximums) but consumption has also gone up! This is because the
economies of the West have been booming and because the third world is
starting to come on-line. 

Some interesting points: 

The current consumption of earth is 10 TerraWatts roughly. They expect,
over
the next 100 years, even with efficiency increases, this will grow to 40
TerraWatts. In the program, they examined various means of generating
power,
the pros and cons and outputs. Here are (as I recall them) some
comments:

Hydro: Good source of power, but limited by available locations. Causes
ecological damage (destroys rivers, destroys marshlands, disturbs tidal
patterns). 

Solar: Good source of limited power. Huge solar farm (one of the larger
ones) puts out (at peak) 30 MW of power. Nearby coal fired plant puts
out
800 MW. Best case is sun about 240 days a year, and even a slight
clouding
really drops off power output. Takes up a lot of real estate. Much power
used to produce solar panels and many resources and lifespan is finite
(and
right now, fairly short). It is questionable whether you'll ever even
recoup
the investment in energy terms - the construction of the materials is so
consumptive. Limited geographic application.

Wind: Good source of limited power. Consumptive (on a smaller scale than
solar) to produce the equipment. In order to generate any large volume
of
power, you need a FREAKIN lot of windmills. This posses environmental
threats to bird and other avian populations. Plus it has limited
geographic
application. 

Coal: Not good ecology wise, but good source of power. Consumable
resource.
Pollutes like the dickens. Similar to other fossil fuels. Greenhouse
issues.

Natural gas: Less polluting that coal, but with an even more finite
supply.
Pollutes. Greenhouse issues.

Other fossil fuels such as gasoline: Limited resource, combustion
byproducts
are green house gasses. 

Nuclear: Using non-breeder reactors, there would only be enough fuel to
drive the massive energy demand of the future world for a few decades.
Somewhat risky depending on reactor design. Byproducts which must be
disposed of. Public fears this technology. Using breeder reactors, fuel
supply might last a few hundred years. 

Biomass: To supply 10 TW, it has been calculated would require 10% of
the
worlds surface - all of the land under cultivation now. To supply 40 TW,
40%
- that's just about every potentially usable surface area covered with
biomass used for power production. Makes for one hell of a bland diet
for
the people. 

Increased Efficiency: There is an upper boundary on industrial energy
efficiency.

Simply put, what they pointed out is that there is no panacea, no
bromide,
no miracle cure. No one power generating technology will solve our
problems
and none comes without a downside. We must obviously become more energy
efficient, we must cut greenhouse emissions to prevent global warming,
and
we must be careful about ruling out any technology (ie nuclear) as a
possible part of a combined energy supply strategy. 

The impact of this on our discussion of 2183 is probably that Earth will
have depleted many energy resources and will probably have suffered
further
global warming. It might not be hell, but it will be nicer weather in
Canada
(not counting the greater incidence of storms and other atmospheric
disturbances of large scale!).	So a drive to colonize may partly be
stemmed
by peoples desire to go to somewhere where there is more plentiful
energy, a
cleaner environment, and a fresh start (a chance to "do it right the
this
time"). This is a pull, but the gov't would also be pushing people to do
this. And there would be a reason for trade - to help support the
homeworld's needs for more energy. The homeworld would offer cheap
labour
and plentiful technological base in return for resources to help keep
the
machinery of society running - energy resources. 

So, I don't think there is any doubt that if nearby (in terms of travel
time) planets with liveable conditions and resource bounties exist,
people
will be moved there or will move there themselves if it is at all
affordable. 

Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist 
Defence Systems
xwave solutions
www.xwavesolutions.com
v: (613) 831 2018 x 3008

Alea iacta et pessimo resulto factura est.
 
Ave, Caesar! Te morituiri salutimas!