Perhaps the best analysis of the energy demands for a modern society was by the late David Mackay, who was also Chief Scientist at the Dept of Energy in the UK. His analyses perfectly described how the modern world is dependent on cheap dispatch-able energy, currently provided by coal, gas and oil, and where suitable Hydro Electric and Nuclear Power .
His argument was that renewables ( wind, solar, biofuels ) are only feasible for low population densities. Nuclear Power is currently the only effective zero carbon energy
Renewables like Wind, Solar, Hydro really are only effective for very low population densities and limited energy intense transportation. Furthermore they suffer from stochastic changes in realtime power output
I believe his paper is still available on the internet
Forbin
David Mackay’s book should be compulsory for all MPs, Greens, and schools. So much sense in it
Completely agree !
I’m the new David Mackay. My book Mathematical Geoenergy predicted the current energy situation — decline of crude oil and ways to analyze renewablle, split into 2 parts. Mackay never go his thing officially published.
It all depends on storage solutions.
Power consumption is variable, but the grid is not flexible.
Like the artificial water basin in Luxembourg which was an early adaptation or hydro dams.
If we can find a better more efficient way to convert surplus electrical power to a storage solution in a dense liquid form like hydrogen things will be much different.
I would be interested to know whether he comes to that conclusion about all use cases. I’m sure he is right while the infrastructure is designed around a small number of very large energy sources each serving (and exerting control over, by way of price fixing) large numbers of citizens and organisations. Would it still be true if there was instead a very large number of small and diverse local energy sources. The problem is that humanity is not adapting fast enough to environmental changes, including population levels. There are too many lobbying vested interest groups holding back change.
He was made Chief Scientist at the Dept of Energy, So he wasn’t against Renewable Energy as such. He just wanted to show how that the reliable Net Zero energy source is Nuclear, while renewables like Wind and Solar are both important if we don’t rely on them alone. Unfortunately he died before he finished his work !
I agree that the increase in population and vested interests hold back progress. It is daft for activists to reject Nuclear Power and imagine a net Zero Grid (Wind & Solar) is going to keep the lights on !
Agreed. A lot of moderate greens like myself are quite happy to run a mix of renewables and battery storage with nuclear to supply baseload and backup.
Too many people reject nuclear because they are environmental purists rather than pragmatists.
The priority is to minimise climate change, which means reducing fossil fuel GHG andemissions. That means replacing gas, oil and coal with wind, sun, water and uranium.
Yes you are right. Long term our energy needs will have to be met by a mix of Nuclear and Natural energy (low carbon solar + renewables)
On the subject of population, the carrying capacity of our global hi-tech civilization is estimates as 10-11 billion.
The rate of increase is slowing and we are expected to peak around 10 billion later this century.
The solution to the population problem was actually quite simple. Educate women and provide proper health care to reduce childhood mortality. Mothers then choose smaller families.
It may be close, but we’ve probably dodged the population Great Hurdle.
I wish I had your optimism. There are theoretical limits to population based on logical projections, and then there is the social/ sociological response of individuals/ systems to perceived supply threats. If there is enough resource for 100 people, and there are 100 people, there will be war. .
I hope you’re right !
The 11 billion figure is obtained by a logical projection of potential resources and production capacity. However, it does not take into account social psychological factors.
If there are sufficient resources for 100 people, and there are 100 people, there will be war. Mad but human!