Live data from Hacker News

“Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

resilience.org

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#31
post #21

Jules Verne was talking about coal depletion in the 19h century (albeit with a more positive note) In the 60s France started switching to nuclear power because it worried about the depletion of oil wells in the areas it controlled. It is wrong to say nuclear power can't power more than 10% of a country.

Somewhat more substantively, so were William Stanley Jevons, in The Coal Question (1857),[1] and earlier by John Williams, a mineral surveyor, in Natural History of the Mineral Kingdom (1789).[2]

Thing is that since the time of Jevons, the only energy sources added to our knowledge are nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and the rather improbable prospect of antiatter annihilation (an energy carrier rather than energy source).

Solar PV has emerged as an energy conversion technology, first discovered as the photoelectric effect in the late 19th century and scientific theory identified by Einstein.

We've seen considerable technical improvements to technologies known since the 1950s, but also clear limitations (fission and fusion most especially, but also maximal efficiencies of PV and battery storage). Efficiencies have improved, toward the bound of theoretical limits, and costs fallen.

But we're still largely living in the world of 1857 in terms of the options available to us.

________________________________

Notes:

1. Jevons: https://archive.org/details/TheCoalQuestion

2. Referenced by Jevons. Available at https://archive.org/details/naturalhistorym00millgoog

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#32
post #3

Solar power and batteries have come a long way, but there's still little political will to change things. Nuclear power could progress a lot further too, but again no political will. There's no economic forcing function either since coal and gas remain on average the cheapest and easiest to deploy and manage sources of energy, and that won't change unless there's enough investment in alternatives to get them over the…

> (No, planetary migration won't keep GDP growth going any time soon. Humans could settle on the Moon or Mars but they're too far away to contribute much to our Earthly GDP. They'd be mostly isolated economies of their own.)

I don't really agree with your take on things but this one stuck out to me as particularly wrong. If there were suddenly another population of humans on another planet, there would, at a minimum, be a regular flow of digital goods, as well as physical shipments, largely one way earth -> mars.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#33

Well hello Mr. Malthus! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus Back to seriousness - the author claims there are limits to nuclear, wind, and solar, but does not state what those limits are. The limit on nuclear is not clear to me - France gets something like 75% of its energy from nuclear. It seems the main limit on nuclear has been public sentiment, which must be weighed with public sentiment on climat…

Back in the 50s, nuclear was being treated as the magic that would solve all energy problems. There were ideas for making fission cars, trains, planes, etc. But since then, civilization has only benefited from nuclear reactors via power plants, naval ships, RTGs, and depending on how you see it, bombs. The magic of nuclear fission never provided the complete revolution it was setup to do. Just as we weren't responsible enough to plan for fission's partial failure back then, we are not able to envision the same partial failure with solar and wind. Fusion is the only thing I can think of that still has a chance to be the magic it is hyped to be. But that is only because its another 50 years away. And that is just too late to stop climate change in its accelerating state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

https://www.ans.org/news/article-109/army-offroad-nuclear-tr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#34

Well hello Mr. Malthus! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus Back to seriousness - the author claims there are limits to nuclear, wind, and solar, but does not state what those limits are. The limit on nuclear is not clear to me - France gets something like 75% of its energy from nuclear. It seems the main limit on nuclear has been public sentiment, which must be weighed with public sentiment on climat…

The limits to various forms of energy are well-known. It's a bit more than I can describe in an HN comment, though Tom "Do the Math" Murphy has a good guide, index to his posts here: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/ Heinberg himself has written of them in earlier books and articles.

Essentially humans have access to the fluxes of solar, geothermal, and tidal energy, and the stores of fossil fuels, nuclear fission from naturally occurring uranium and plutonium, and potentially nuclear fission from hydrogen plus a few other essential light isotopes and/or elements.

All other energy sources are either carriers (as with hydrogen as a combustion fuel), or derivative. Notably hydroelectric, wind, biomass, and wave energy are all derivatives of solar flux. (Fossil fuels are derivatives of past solar flux.)

Solar is the most tractable large-scale power source. The raw rate of incidence is about 1 kW/m^2 at Earth's surface. This is reduced by a number of considerations, including land area, spacing factors, panel efficiencies, and losses through conversion (DC/AC), transmission, and storage. The net potential is perhaps 5% of the total incident quantity. And there's the small factor that all other life on Earth also competes for this resource.

Hydro is proven but largely exploited, and has environmental consequences now increasingly recognised and often untenable.

Total wind and wave power (the latter is effectively nil) are small fractions of total solar power. Wind power is attractive principally as in places where it HAPPENS to be prevalent, the capital costs are low relative to energy returned.

Geothermal, while independent of solar, is a small fraction of the latter, and is already largely utilised where available and practical, though there's significant undeveloped resource in Africa, and in the US in the Yellowstone Caldera, though official resource estimates exclude this due to its protected status as a National Park. (Pointed, the USGS utterly omits the Yellowstone Caldera in its geothermal resource survey of a decade or two back.) As baseload power, geothermal is attractive. Capital-intensive "enhanced" geothermal has proved disappointing to date (see Australia's Habanero project).

Tidal energy is worth mentioning only because it's independent of the usual solar/nuclear axis: tidal energy actually represents a tap on gravitational potential of the Earth-Moon-Sun system. It's slightly more viable than wave energy, but save for a few very limited local applications, not practicable. Tapping the entire tidal potential of, say, the San Francisco Bay would not even power the city of San Francisco at current electric utilisation, let alone full energy demands, or of the greater Bay Area. And this would require entirely damming the Bay.

Nuclear fission suffers from a fuel shortage problem: known nuclear reserves would power present human energy needs for about 15 years, total. At present rates of utilisation, that lifetime is extended, but still comes in at under a century. There's the standard bickering about definitions of reserves, and talk of seawater extraction (of uranium, other fuels not being salt-water soluable), breeding (of plutonium), or use of thorium, under either existing or novel reactor designs. All three options have significant limitations, though some may be technologically feasible. The resulting energy system and economy would be fragile and risk-prone.

Fusion is as it's always been, the power source of the future. And always will be, as the punch line goes.

That's the lineup. Murphy has a good overview of numbers. Vaclav Smil in numerous of his books (Energy and Civilization and Energy in World History, an earlier edition of the same book, though with somewhat different organisation, as well as others) takes a deeper dive into many of these issues.

Mind that solving the energy problem is only one of numerous stumbling blocks between now an a long-term viable technological human civilisation. Numerous others exist, and the fundamental fact remains that economic growth (and its concommittant and requisite resource and energy growth) simply cannot continue indefinitely.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#35
post #26
post #2

It's amazing how long we have known about the impact CO2 would have on the climate. We're now talking about human lifetimes, and yet look at where we are in the public debate. We are still mostly ignoring the issue or debating its reality.

Who is "we"? The IPCC was created in 1988, at the alarmed demand of the Weather and Environment offices of the UN. In 1997 the Kyoto protocol was signed by 184 countries, recognizing the urgency and the need for CO2 reduction. Only in the US is there a political debate about climate change denialism. Thanks to you it is coming to other countries, but before GWB it was a fringe position everywhere.

My read of OP's point was that the fundamental science has long been known. The problem was recognised at a global scale both publicly and at high levels of government by the 1960s. Denialism is strong in the United States, but as with other recent (and ongoing) global crises, also prevalent elsewhere.

For a timeline of awareness of the problem we can go back over 200 years for early insights:

1800-1870: Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO₂) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.

1824: Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

1859: Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.

1896: Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO₂.

1897: Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.

1870-1910: Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918: World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925: Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.

1930s Global warming trend since late 19th century reported.

Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.

1938: Callendar argues that CO₂ greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.

1939-1945: World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

1945: US Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change.

1956: Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset.

Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere.

Plass calculates that adding CO₂ to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

1957: Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies.

Revelle finds that CO₂ produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.

1958: Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.

1960: Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.

Keeling accurately measures CO₂ in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise.

1962: Cuban Missile Crisis, peak of the Cold War.

1963: Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO₂ level.

1965: Boulder, Colo. meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts.

1966: Emiliani's analysis of deep-sea cores and Broecker's analysis of ancient corals show that the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.

1967: International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but including climate.

Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO₂ would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees.

1968: Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically.

1969: Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile whole.

Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks.

Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements.

1970: First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads concern about global degradation.

Creation of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world's leading funder of climate research.

Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling.

1971: SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort.

Mariner 9 spacecraft finds a great dust storm warming the atmosphere of Mars, plus indications of a radically different climate in the past.

1972: Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially around 11,000 years ago.

Droughts in Africa, Ukraine, India cause world food crisis, spreading fears about climate change.

1973: Oil embargo and price rise bring first "energy crisis".

1974: Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful as journalists talk of a new ice age.

1975: Warnings about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer.

Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO₂.

1976: Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks.

Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate.

Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods .

1977: Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century.

1978: Attempts to coordinate climate research in US end with an inadequate National Climate Program Act, accompanied by rapid but temporary growth in funding.

1979: Second oil "energy crisis." Strengthened environmental movement encourages renewable energy sources, inhibits nuclear energy growth.

US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO₂ will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.

World Climate Research Programme launched to coordinate international research.

1981: Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#36

Well hello Mr. Malthus! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus Back to seriousness - the author claims there are limits to nuclear, wind, and solar, but does not state what those limits are. The limit on nuclear is not clear to me - France gets something like 75% of its energy from nuclear. It seems the main limit on nuclear has been public sentiment, which must be weighed with public sentiment on climat…

Finding appropriate sites for generators would probably be the engineering limit for nuclear. I don't know if nuclear is easy or hard to get started in a black start condition; if they're hard to start, there's probably a max % of the grid you'd want to be nuclear.

But the will of the people and regulatory hurdles mean permitting and construction is slow and economics are not great. Also, there's probably a manufacturing capacity issue; if you wanted to get 100 new plants online in the next 5 years, and permitting and siting were a non-issue, getting the parts made would be.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#37

Given how long these problems have been staring us in the face, it's truly hard not to be totally pessimistic about the future. If we haven't changed yet, do we even have the capacity to do so?

This strikes me as the real question here.

The world is (one hopes) just beginning to emerge from a global disaster of a known variety, for which there has been longstanding scientific and technical understanding, as well as existing paybooks for dealing with the situation. Response by the most capable and technologically-advanced countries has often been abysmal.

The coming global energy transition is going to be orders of magnitude more complex and fraught than the COVID-19 pandemic has been. And this is uncharted territory, with no tested playbook (the IPCC guidelines and publications are at least a playbook), and ongoing dissent within and among countries as to measures to be taken and how costs are to be allocated.

William Ophuls studied this question beginning in the late 1960s. His PhD dissertation in political science at Yale was published as Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity[1] in 1977 (it's been revised since), and the question has been Ophuls's life work.[2]

In particular, Ophuls's assessment of the global situation in the 1970s, the likely developments in ensuing decades, which 44 years on we can compare against history, and likely sticking points yet to come, stand out. Ophuls is a realist, but an optimist (perhaps somewhat less of the latter with time). He does see a path out. But it hasn't been the path chosen over the past five decades.

________________________________

Notes:

1. Ophuls: https://archive.org/details/ecologypolitics00ophu

2. Bibliography: https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=au%3Ao...

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#38
> But let’s assume there is indeed enough time, and that we suddenly get serious about planning. What should we do?

In the United States public planning is typically limited to figuring out how to prop up the private financial system for one more quarter. In the U.S. most money is created through real estate mortgages. Although people like to talk about gold, crypto, consumers, producers, and government spending the mainstream financial system in charge of allocating the resources is really a mortgage based system.

Suppose someone has an estate with buildings and structures with replacement cost of $200,000. A broker says the estate has a comparable sales price of $600,000. In a loose money system we just trust the banks and brokers to do all of the planning, publicly guarantee mortgages at the reported $600,000, and have federal reserve buy assets to prop up prices at whatever number private finance has fixed upon.

In a slightly tighter system, we might cap real estate loan guarantees at 200% of replacement cost of non-land fixed capital. So if property has buildings and fixtures worth $200,000 public loan guarantees max out at $400,000 even if broker says property is worth $600,000. In order to write up price to $600,000 the owner would need to install $100,000 more in fixed capital, the effect of which is to redirect a larger share of the money created through mortgages to other sectors of economy.

How to use this to promote green energy investment?

Suppose instead of a replacement cost cap of 200% there was a replacement cost cap of 150% for normal capital and 250% for green capital. Then in order to take out a property loan for $600,000 the owner would have to install at least $400,000 of normal capital (structures, fixtures, equipment) or at least $240,000 of green capital (solar panels, wind turbines, lifted mass storage systems), regardless of how high the land values in the location had been written up.

In our current system the incentive of brokers is really just to write up asset prices as high as possible until the financial system collapses in order to generate some nice asset gains during credit bubbles. We can take advantage of this greed and use it to promote green energy investment by tightening up rules for lending against speculative land values using fixed capital replacement cost caps, which are slightly looser for fixed capital which is green.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#39

Well hello Mr. Malthus! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus Back to seriousness - the author claims there are limits to nuclear, wind, and solar, but does not state what those limits are. The limit on nuclear is not clear to me - France gets something like 75% of its energy from nuclear. It seems the main limit on nuclear has been public sentiment, which must be weighed with public sentiment on climat…

The limits to various forms of energy are well-known. It's a bit more than I can describe in an HN comment, though Tom "Do the Math" Murphy has a good guide, index to his posts here: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/ Heinberg himself has written of them in earlier books and articles. Essentially humans have access to the fluxes of solar, geothermal, and tidal energy, and the stores of fossil fuels, nuclear fissi…

> economic growth (and its concommittant and requisite resource and energy growth) simply cannot continue indefinitely.

Economic growth occurs in any situation where you increase productivity. But this means you can increase productivity in anyway, including by efficiency improvements.

Economic growth can't be sustained at the same rate it has been, but it can be sustained because while 100% efficiency is an asymptote it is approachable.

Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953

#40
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's surprisingly low. 2.6 megawatt hours per year is 300 watts per person which is almost the same order of magnitude of what the human body can produce.

Arggh... I made a typo. It is 22.6 megawatt hours per capita per year, so an order of magnitude higher.

~60 kwH per day...that's actually pretty much inline with a normal household (also about the average of what my rooftop solar achieves).
Post reply on HN