Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

System · October 2008

Climate change is not the most pressing issue facing mankind today. Hunting down the perpetrators of the greenhouse effect not only wastes time but focuses our attention on the wrong issues. We should instead be looking for new energy sources, new technologies and new means to manage population growth.

The importance of ensuring sufficient energy for the future is almost impossible to overestimate, because energy directly and indirectly affects the price of virtually everything in society. Energy is needed throughout the whole production chain; expensive energy simply means expensive products, food, medicines, pure water and services, and it is also likely to keep wages and salaries down.

Affordable and sustainable energy can allow us to maintain a fair standard of living for the whole of mankind, and thus allow us to focus on preserving our natural environment, biodiversity and even world peace. Massive population growth is the main reason for the exorbitant energy demand. The birth rate must be regulated, otherwise it will lead to further degradation of the environment and a worsening of problems in society, foiling all our other efforts.

Identifying sustainable energy sources seems to be the main problem. The 'right choice' is always easy to identify with hindsight, but it is possible to make more rational choices in advance too. For example, today we can easily say that companies investing ten years ago in cathode ray tube TVs or photographic film misdirected their investment in mature and obsolete technology. The wise companies identified the tremendous development potential of new LCD television monitors and digital photo sensors, and today they are reaping the rewards.

A similar scenario is now evident in the wind and bio-energy sector. Wind turbines and wind farms use technology that is today relatively mature, whereas solar energy still has tremendous development potential. The sun provides more power (1366 MW/km²) per square kilometre than a large nuclear power plant. According to annual net estimates, the density potential of solar energy may be one hundred times greater than that of wind and bio-energy.

Solar energy 300 MW/km2
Wind turbines 3 MW/km2
Bio-energy 2 MW/km2

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=121&mode=view
Fig. 1: Annual solar power distribution is based on local solar irradiation and cloud coverage over the years 1991 to 1993.

Wind and bio-energy production wastes valuable areas of land and spoils landscapes. The farming of bio-fuels in particular destroys natural carbon sinks and biodiversity, and also pollutes water systems with fertilizers and insecticides. Their real net efficiency may in fact be negative, especially if the entire life cycle and necessary reserve power plants are taken into account.

Solar cells require less land, as they can be placed in sunny deserts or on rooftops, where they will not destroy carbon sinks and pollute the environment. The entire energy demand of Europe could be satisfied with an area of solar cells that is 110 by 110 kilometres in size. Correspondingly, an area of 250 by 250 kilometres could supply energy to the entire world. Wind or bio-energy would require one hundred times more land area.

Sunlight is the primary source of the wind-, bio- and hydropower, which all are secondary energy sources. We do not buy from peddler when we want to get a large amount of goods at low price, but directly from the primary producer. Why not to use this very same idea when looking for economical energy sources?

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=114&mode=view
Fig. 2: The entire energy demand of Europe could be satisfied with an area of solar cells that is 110 by 110 kilometres in size.

The time of cheap energy is not past; it is ahead of us. If we do not wish to be dependent on potentially unstable oil-supplying countries forever, waiting for them to gradually empty our coffers, we must invest in solar technology. We must increase the efficiency and decrease the price of different types of solar cells, heat pumps, insulation, energy storage and transportation methods. New industrial photosynthesis cells, for example, offer the prospect of increasing the efficiency of hydrogen or sugar production to a level fifty times greater than wild plants could ever offer.

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=115&mode=view
Fig. 3: Core of the chlorophyll molecule. Industrial photosynthesis process efficiency may be fifty times greater than wild plants could ever offer.

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=120&mode=view
Fig. 4: Solar cells convert light to electrical energy, efficiency has been increased in laboratory scale but it can be done also in commercial scale by investing on production technology development. Solar thermal panels offer more than 95% efficiency already today.

One billion people in rich countries consume 7.6 kW of power, while the other 5.5 billion people in the world have to manage with only 1.3 kW. Those in the rich countries will not be able to save enough energy to compensate for the growing requirements of the world's poor. Of course, small personal energy savings by people in rich countries ease their conscience, but this does not solve the real global problem.

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=119&mode=view
Fig. 5: World power consumption and CO2 emissions.

The Kyoto agreement is now ten years old and the depressing results are now available. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is increasing faster than ever, along with food and fuel prices and population. The Kyoto agreement has only succeeded in transferring industry and jobs to those countries which care little about environmental problems. Agreements like this are also dangerous because they give a false sense of security.

New post-Kyoto agreements must channel emissions trading funds to the development of new solar technology and commit to curb population growth. The optimum stabilization of national population enhances culture and wellfare and prevents also war. And it is a wise nation which knows when to cease growing.

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=118&mode=view
Fig. 6: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increases along with the population. Annually 1000 million people in rich countries produce carbon dioxide 11.2 tons and 5500 million in poor countries 2.8 tons per person.

Only a brave soul is willing to honestly admit and fearlessly face the truth and the undeniable facts, which are out there for anyone with a sincere and logical mind to discover. We now need such people to overcome the world energy crisis. We need green idealists who will make our failures visible; we need open-minded citizens who will vote for change; we need wise politicians who will pass the necessary laws; and we need realist green engineers who will finally solve the problems.

Dr. Antti Roine, Ulvila, Finland
28 July 2008

nigtomdaw · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

Im surprised that we have had no comments or replies to this post

BB. · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

Want a vote on moving this it the "Hype" forum?

<ducks and runs away>

-Bill

nigtomdaw · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

Well its up to you but its relative discussing solar, wind , hydro,

I would like the experts to rip into it if they can to expand my knowledge base, unless I missed something cos its late and Im tired I would have expected some reponses on some levels not maybe on population control.....too hot a potatoe.:p

icarus · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

I think it as some interesting ideas,,

I would move it where it might get read.

T

BB. · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

OK, its "here" in the "Open Energy Discussion/Hype" forum.

-Bill

mike95490 · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

Antti Roine wrote: »

and new means to manage population growth.

I'm open to ideas ! Contraceptives in the water? Fluoride in the water ? In industrialized countries ? Undeveloped countries ? Feed the poor so they can create more poor ?

Is there a formula to decide how much power will be alloted to industrialized citizens, so more can be given to undeveloped ones ?

It's a can-O-worms, and I'm moving to higher ground !

Windsun · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

Not sure how relevant this is, looks like the original poster has not been back since they posted it months ago.

But I will leave it for the mods to decide whether to delete the thread or not for now.

BB. · January 2009

Re: Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

For what its worth--here is an Anti-AGW article from the Huffington Post (non-conservative website).

A nice synopsis of what I understand to be the major issues around Kyoto/anthropogenic global warming and why Mr. Gore and the people pushing CO2 reduction and the "horrors of global warming--even if it does happen--are pretty much wrong. AGM is based on flawed computer models and (probably) poor temperature collection (flawed ground based stations that measure the high/low air temperature).

From a conservative website, a nice, link heavy article with similar information (with links back to the source).

Also, an interesting YouTube Video done by a guy where he tried to see what the urban heat island effect may look like (sort of related to the issue around flawed ground based stations link above--I have not tried following his steps myself--so this could just be disinformation too). Climatologists agree there is an urban heat island effect (cities warmer than country side)--However, there is a big argument on how much this effect is (the raw GW data is massively massaged by Hanson and others, and it is unknown how much of the "AGW" is the result of just improper data "correction"--for example, we have temperature stations that started out in the country, and are now in the city--there has to be a correction if you want a 100+ year continuous record, but how much and can the corrected data be used to demonstrate AGW or not).

And, I agree with Mike--who is going to make those decisions on energy and population distribution.

I do believe that the world's governments have setup their programs to require a constantly increasing population to fund their current expenditures and programs--and if any of the major countries actually attempted a stable/slightly declining population trend--there would be big problems (i.e., Russia). Other countries have opened there borders to "guest workers" and immigrants to help keep their populations growing.

And, on the other hand, no matter how much water, food, and fuel we can (or can't produce)--there will be an end to the growth of human population from the point of pure math (population cannot expand forever on a fixed size earth).

Regarding other points from the original poster--I agree that to produce bio-fuel would require huge amount of farm land and water (in the US)--to meet our energy needs.

I don't think that solar PV cells will ever reap the benefits of technology advancement like the computer industry has--Solar Technology can't miniaturize (need lots of area to collect sun), and the physics is pretty well known (not a great chance of some "currently unknown" physical phenomenon will be found and increase power output by 4-8 times--unlike digital electronics that, so far, have followed Moore's Law of computer processing power doubling every 18 to 24 months, for the last 30 years).

Probably new methods of energy storage and thermal based solar collection systems (for electric power generation) will be the best non-traditional source of "new power".

Lastly, it tick's me off that people (everyone) calls CO2 a "Green House" gas because it lets in short IR and reflects back to the ground long IR (Infra-Red) radiation... A Green House does not work this way. The Green House Effect is caused by the prevention of Convective Currents in the air which cools the ground by caused by the heating of the sun. Glass walls simply prevent the atmosphere from circulating next to the warmed ground. This effect was first tested (scientifically) by Professor R.W Wood around 1909 (or a bit earlier):

THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.

To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a themometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.

There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.

So does CO2 work this way in our atmosphere--I think the effects of CO2 (and water vapor) is much more complex than "more CO2, and the world gets hotter". So far, none of the CO2 heating effects predicted by computer models have been measured in real life earth.

My 2 cents worth.

-Bill

Energy and overpopulation are our biggest challenges

Comments

Categories