Reply #33: Thanks for those corrections

[Dogmudgeon]

And to DCFirefighter, as well.

I was probably thinking of commercial=industrial; from the looks of it, commercial energy use could be shrunk drastically. A major work-at-home push could cut the size of that sphere of energy use, AND eliminate waste energy where the house sits empty all day while the couple is working and the kids are at daycare.

I also overestimated the energy needs of the world. I cited 550 EJ from memory; I think 450 EJ is more the correct value, from the graphic NNadir posted. Anyway, my big-picture arguments are unchanged: within a decade, maybe a decade-and-a-half if we're lucky, we're going to hit an energy resources gap like Wile E. Coyote stepping out over the cliff. But unlike the cartoons, our drop will end in a very painful crash.

The other numerical assumptions I made were based on a 2% per annum rate of population growth, the necessity of maintaining a 2.5% per annum rate of energy demand growth to prevent depression and financial collapse, and the "Rule of 70" (also see the Six Billion Game web page for several discussions of the implications of human population growth) for determining doubling time from a percentage. (E.g., 2% growth produces a doubling time of 70/2 , or 35, years.) So, the fundamental problem is the old Malthusian one of population vs. resources.

First, we probably need to go nuclear. Even so, it will be difficult, it will require giving a lot of political power over to industrialists who have had lousy reputations for civic responsibility, and it will entail significant risks from potential radioisotope leakage due to plain old human stupidity. And there is no guarantee that we will be able to build enough nukes in time to bridge the energy resources gap. But compared to the deaths of 5 to 6 billion people, the risks are not terrible.

Second, we possibly could get all the energy we need from non-nuclear technology, BUT it will be much more difficult to do than to go nuclear, which itself is not a sure thing. We should develop non-nuclear energy technologies anyway, but without taking nuclear power into consideration, we'd only be hobbling ourselves..

Third, we have no idea how climate change will complicate matters, but any additional burden will require more energy production. Mass migrations use up a lot of gasoline. Even if we force the starving refugees to walk, all that precious movable capital is going to need lots of automobiles and trucks.

Anti-nuke proponents, believe me, I did not come to my decision lightly. NNadir isn't slipping me cash for being pro-nuke. But we've wasted close to half a century, and now all we're left with is the possibility that a mad dash to nuclear energy could maybe save our collective bacon. We have about ten years left to get the plans in motion.

If there is a way to avoid going nuclear without sacrificing billions of people, let me know. Perhaps it is simply a matter of my own lack of imagination. But right now, it appears to be a lot easier to protect nuclear power plants from damage and strictly regulate their operation than it would be to allow a most of the human race to die.

At this point, any scenario may be hopeless. But it's absurd to think that way. I prefer the absurdity of believing that we can survive.

--p!