Pop! ulation

As we all thought of population this week, hitting 7 billion people on October 31 2011, I was startled at the  pop! I heard as the world burst its rapidly expanding balloon.  After 200 years of exponential growth we find our species on the brink of the Earth's carrying capacity.  What is striking to me is just how fast population has exploded.  To stick with the metaphor, its as if a child has been trying to blow up a balloon for 10 thousands years, but only able to fill the space to that initial elasticity.  Then a thousand years ago with stronger lungs the kid blew one long breath which forced the balloon to expand, and if you have ever filled balloons with helium at the fair it's as if the valve was suddenly opened and the balloon expanded so quickly you didn't even know if you could pull it off the helium bottle in time!  If you can picture that balloon doing nothing for a very long time, them starting to fill with slow expansion, and a sudden shift to an exponential rate of growth that makes you turn your head and shield your face from the impending explosion... we have an accurate view of where we are.


A great visual by NPR shows this growth in another way.  What is absolutely astounding is that we did finally hit 1B people in 1800 or so, but that took nigh on 10,000 years.  850 years to double, then double again from that original 300 million in 1000 AD; but it only took next 100 years to double and double again to hit 5 billion!  6 billion..  7 billion..

Now, population experts will say that there will be a self governing leveling before the balloon pops.  Conventional wisdom also shows that we believe much of this sudden growth was due to far better health care (lower infant mortality and longer lives), and increased crop yields.  Although this may be true, I see a correlation to the discovery and use of fossil fuels, along with the direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Just look how well these two charts overlay!  The reason for better health and higher yields is due to easily accessible power, work not tied to human and animal power which has limited scale, and global economics that allowed advances circulate globally.  

Quite startling don't you think?  That which gave us so much potential and incredible evolution -easily accessible, low cost, and super dense energy- is also potentially our undoing.  


One argument about population is the disparity in per capita energy use, and the contrary per capita population growth between developed and developing worlds.  You could argue that the developed countries have caused the CO2 rise simply do to such huge energy consumption; where as the developing world is the cause of population explosion.  Well, the two happened simultaneously so energy must be responsible for improved medical and agriculture in the developing world allowing an exit from severe poverty, will also allowing a life style of wealth and rapidly decreasing birth rates over the previous two generations.  Awesome on us as humans to be well underway in lifting living standards around the world, and everything that comes with that from education to equality to innovation.  The down side we all know -as energy appetite increases there will be more than just stress on supply, demand, and environmental degradation.


So what to do?  The crash course that the human race is in with our Mother's ability to support us is apparent, we've already the population and life style expectations, and only the energy consumption, environmental degradation, and natural resource depletion lag to come. 

Politicians Waffle On Energy While Government Leaders Take Action

It's an interesting juxtaposition when politicians take a stand against government action, pointing to a bureaucratic system ripe with waste while exhibiting the very characteristics of ineffectiveness they purport to be against.  Witnessing the debt ceiling debate, errr activism, while watching bills being voted in Congress that seek to undo past decisions makes me think of Lord of the Flies meets Fast Times at Ridgemont High, where somehow Spicoli becomes the elected leader.  Ok, actually just the former reference is accurate, but you'd expect that the new Congressional caucus came with a greater depth of knowledge.  Undoing what has already been done simply obviates the reality brought forth in Tragedy of the Commons -we must work toward the common good of a system that supports us all.  Worse, is which issues are chosen to go after, with torches a blaze, as if our species is not on a crass course with natures ability to support us (we've doubled our population in only 50yrs and natural resources are oversubscribed).  Geologists and anthropologists have even placed us in a new era - Anthropocene.  But regardless if you believe in environmental degradation or not, there is simply no reason to waste time and energy on silly grand standing pursuits when there are critical actions to be taken for our country and its people.


Exhibit #1a -Tea Partiers and light bulbs.
Amazingly, this wise new congress choose to use lighting standards as a platform for government intrusion of privacy and right to free choice.  You'd think they might have used a more astute prop such as CAFE standards, or at least they could have done their homework to find out that that the law is an energy efficiency standard, not product outlaw.  Of course that might have uncovered the fact that incandescent lights are the biggest electricity demand in our country (remember Timothy, turn off the lights!).  The Pop and Bake oven even used a 100W bulb as its cooking element!  Of course, contrary to the libertarian mindset that no one wants these CFLs, Home Depot will tell you that CFLs were the biggest selling item on the shelf, if they could even keep it stocked.  Now that's freedom of choice.


Exhibit #1b -Rick Perry on the EPA their job killing regulation.
For the life of me I can't figure how the air pollution requirements of utility scale generation, specifically coal fired power plants, would kill jobs.  Regardless whether you add technology to existing plants or convert to natural gas, the costs are somewhere around half a billion dollars per utility scale plant.  That sounds like jobs to me.


Exhibit #2a -Federal government and sustainable energy.
When Obama took office the administration knew that one of the best approaches to supporting the new green economy was to be the buyer.  Green building guidelines were adopted for all federal agencies with respect to integrated design principles, optimized energy performance, water conservation, indoor ari quality, and reduced environmental impact due to materials.  This 30% reduction by 2015 builds on the executive order from the Bush era [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007] that by 2030 100% reduction in fossil fuel consumption (below 2003 baseline).. that's Net 0 yo.  And in turn these policies indeed have been major drivers in reducing building energy consumption (40% of our national energy profile) and paving the way for wide spread green building -and retrofit- adoption while simultaneously lowing the annual expenditures by an equivalent amount today and far exceeding inflationary rates tomorrow.


Exhibit #2b -DoD has already chosen energy security and cost hedging.
The major story just starting to break out of the dark is the amazing advances taking place in the Department of Defense.  All politics aside of course when it comes to long term strategy and serious decision making.  From the Marines adopting new energy tech (solar charging) to significantly increase in-field time, lower costs, and most importantly reduce the risk to troops through far fewer fuel transports; to the navy already achieving 30% reduction in global fuel consumption (through bio fuels) with another 50% reduction target!  The DoD is no lot of fools.  I can't wait to see some of the grander plans coming out of the other two branches, no doubt coming to air waves near you soon.


Exhibit #2c -DOE Secretary Chu on energy and the great American innovation machine.
A nobel prize winner in physics, creator of Bio-X the cross discipline scientific initiative, professor at Stanford, with a past at Bell Labs -Secretary Chu well understands the power of innovation when a critical mission is at hand.  His critical mission is driven by climate change and the future of our species.  (Catching Mr. Chu's brief synopsis of climate history and analysis proving where we are, and likely to go, is quite eye opening.  Did you know that in the last ice age global temp was only 6C less than this century's average; we're projected to increase global temp by 6C in the next several decades -if 6 minus is continents under ice what is 6 plus?)  Regardless whether one believes in environmental concerns, the rest of the world does and is rapidly advancing to the head of the line while the US struggles to find a common mission.. much less a common vision.  The point is that Secretary Chu sees a mission far greater than the space race and he understands how to spark the specific strings of imagination, ingenuity, an good old team work in order to achieve grand breakthroughs on the order we need.  Capitalism is awesome but free markets don't create an atomic bomb nor a moon shot.


The only answers you need to determine:

• Are politicians protecting us or holding us back?;
• Is federal government an ineffectual bureaucracy or the enabling system of our better future?

Negawatts Megawatts - RE vs EE

I find myself needing to right about negawatts and megawatts, just to push the point that there is little utility in generating renewable megawatts if the efficiency negawatts have not been harvested. I'm reminded of the gluttony in Super Size Me - if one continues to gorge on unhealthy food, but occasionally consumes apple wedges or the lettuce based 'salad', can you really champion those habits as if he/she is making a difference in their overall health? I think not. So why do we feel that generating our ever increasing energy needs from renewables will save the environment.. or save us from rapid and intermittent climate change? It won't.

The value in renewable energy is awareness and proof. Everyone can get excited about it and energy becomes front of mind. Capital can get excited about it and that creates prof in projects. Entrepreneurs can get excited and that creates jobs and buoyancy for an industry. And policy makers can get excited about it (if our Representatives would get off their silly stumps). So although leading with the megawatt RE before cleaning up with the negawatt EE doesn't make sense... maybe it does! Its all a game of psychology isn't it.

However, we can't negate the point that the quickest energy path forward is by far and away through energy efficiency. We could achieve a 30% reduction in our energy needs in the next 20years. It will take twice that long with renewables.  But with both, we can offset half of today's consumption of fossil fuel in just 20 years!