From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: Sky is Falling, news at 11:00 (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:45:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.034211.3929@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <7520008@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rrd@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ray Depew) writes:
>
>>I took an "Energy and the Environment" course back in 1980.  One assignment
>>was (1) to research the world's projected energy 
>>needs for the present, the next decade and the next century, (2) to research
>>the world's projected energy resources for the same time periods, 
>>including petroleum imports, and (3) to compare the two.  
>
>So, did your projections match reality for the period 1980-1990?
>
>>We reached the
>>sobering conclusion that WE ARE GOING TO NEED EVERY DROP OF ENERGY WE CAN 
>>SQUEEZE FROM EVERY RESOURCE WE HAVE, UNLESS HUMANS ARE WILLING TO 
>>DRASTICALLY REDUCE THEIR PER-CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY.  
>
>Well, having just got my last utlity bill, I can post that my electricity
>consumption was fully 1/2 of the prior year.  This was at NO REDUCTION IN
>MY LIFESTYLE WHATSOEVER.  (And doesn't reflect my total savings so far,
>since some of it has happened in prior years and was already in the
>'last years' consumption ...).  I havn't done a whole lot, really.
>
>Almost all of it was accounted for by putting in compact fluorecent bulbs,
>getting a new refrigerator, and putting the yard light on a motion 
>sensor (the area light over the driveway is still on all night ...).
>
>I think your conclusion contains it's own demise ... we can easily
>reduce our per-capita consumption of energy 'drastically' with no
>negative effects.  I have.  It was fun.
>
>Oh, and I bought my Honda in 1980.  It replaced a 1977 Chevy truck 
>that got about 8 mpg.  I went to 38 mpg instead.  Did your model
>linearly project my 8mpg to become 2mpg, or did it allow that the
>econobox would knock OPEC on it's ear?
>
>>(This means
>>solar, wind, photovoltaic, biomass, nuclear, coal, ... you name it.)
>>Even ZPG wouldn't be enough to solve the problem, because per-capita 
>>energy consumption in the world continues to increase, despite all our
>>efforts to conserve.  (Sorry about the ALL CAPS, but Mr. Fast might need
>>to see them as well.)
>
>Try looking at the long history of failed models that used a direct
>extrapolation of a growing trend into an indeterminate future.  ANY
>exponential growth will eventually lead to doom.  This was what made
>Malthus famous.  It is also why at UCD they had this class called 
>Economics of Ecology (I think it was Econ 136? Taught by a Dr. Gustafson,
>one heck of a smart guy, BTW.  I wonder if he is still at Davis ...)
>that took the book 'Limits to Growth' by Meadows et.al. and shredded
>it to bits ...  That book, too, predicted Dire Straights.
>
>BTW, one of the projects (computer generated, of course) had us 
>running out of natural gas last year ... exponential growth of 
>consumption and fixed supply, don't you know.  Funny thing, my
>gas stove still has gas in it ...
>
>>Anyone who thinks we can eliminate one current or future source of energy,
>>be it coal, nuclear or hydro, is living in a fool's paradise.  If we were
>>to shut off nuke power, be it a little at a time or all at once, quality-
>>of-life would suffer the world over.
>
>Pick up a 1990 copy of Scientific American.  Look at the world consumption
>of energy.  Look at the DOCUMENTED SUPPLIES of energy.  Do some simple
>math.  We need to worry in about, oh, a few tens of thousands of years...  
>Take out nuclear and that drops like a rock to a few thousand years.
>I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it if nuclear is shelved for a 100
>years or so.  For that matter, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it if
>coal plants were shelved for 100 years or so either ...
>
>The key?  Don't project exponential growth.  Project flat or falling
>per capita demand (or even slightly growing).  That is also more in
>keeping with the reality I've experienced in the last decade...
>
>-- 
>
>E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM
>
>'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
> genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe
>
>I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

   What happens when, through the magic of capitalism and free markets B^}, all
of the people in Asia, Africa, and South America begin to connect to the grid
and run their refridgerators, HVAC, sprinklers, etc? Certainly more total
energy and water will be used, and more pollution will result.
   This is where, IMHO, that personal and technological conservation is the
most important. If these populations can avoid the excesses of lifestyle and
skip some of the inefficient iterations of technology, maybe the transition
will be smoothed. Can the entire world maintain a lifestyle/economy at an equal
rate of consumption as the U.S.?

Jim Burris