Re: Global Warming may avert next ice age, etc.

[Richard Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>]

Just to keep the numbers straight (my ballyhoo) and staying with round
numbers--all in terms of  kilowatt-hours/year/person--the U.S. is at 80,000
while the world is at 20,000.  Europe is 60,000 and Japan 40,000.  The U.S.
and Japan have some very special conditions (country size, population
density, materials importation--stuff I've discussed earlier) that produces
high and low values respectively--relative to the standard of living.  I
would venture that a uniform usage at about 50,000 units would provide a
comfortable, standard of living for the world.  This would be about a
factor of 2.5 increase in energy use--if done overnight.  At this point in
time, population projections suggest that we will stabilize at no more than
12 billion and maybe more around 9 billion.  So, for an ultimate energy
usage in a 'fair' distribution model, we're looking at 4-5 times today's
usage.  That's roughly 500 terra-kWh per year.  That's the number one
should be looking at in terms of PROVIDING energy for the future world.
Can that much be provided by sources with less environmental impact than
the fossil fuels?  What kind of time-line for conversion is affordable to
the world economy?  What really is the global impact of this level of
energy use by humans--worst case still using the last dregs of fossil
supplies, best case using ....?

The energy use per person has been pretty constant over the 20 years for
which I have data.  Efficiency, conservation, and most of all ECONOMICS
have prevented any major increases in the past two decades.  Overall use
rises, of course, due to population increases--which brings us back to
population control as being the primary way to deal with both energy and
environmental issues.

Rick

(1986-2002 world energy data available at site below).

****************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

**********************************************************
FREE:  Windows and Mac Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
***********************************************************


> [Original Message]
> From: Bob LaMontagne <rlamont@POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU>
> To: <PHYSOC@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
> Date: 1/10/2004 6:53:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Global Warming may avert next ice age, etc.
>
> I'm perplexed by the projections implied here. Suppose we brought the
> entire rest of the world to our level of energy consumption next year,
> i.e., a 25 fold increase in world energy consumption. Disregarding the
> supposed greenhouse repercussions, are you arguing that the average
> global temperature would rise to 50 degrees C? I wish I had the time to
> run the calculation myself, but I'm in panic mode with classes about to
> resume.
>
> Bob at PC
>
> Gordon Aubrecht wrote:
> >
>
> > An even bigger problem is that we are growing energy use exponentially.
Most people everywhere in the world (unsurprisingly) want to live as well
as we energy wastrels in North America do. Exponential growth in energy
won't be going away anytime soon barring global economic collapse (as in
the IMF's recent warning).
> > As we all know, Earth may (essentially) be considered a blackbody, and
as humanity uses energy, most of it ends up as waste heat eventually. As a
result, radiation balance assures us that (with or without the enhanced
greenhouse effect) Earth's average temperature will rise. Assuming that 50
°C is essentially fatal to most life as we know it, a simple calculation
folding in exponential growth in energy use shows we are all in
trouble--and very soon!
> >