Why nor hear from an expert?Expert in what? Speaking narrative on youtube? Not to say he said a lot of false information, at least in second video which I partially watched.
It isn't easy to convert cellulose into ethanol so that is why the earlier methods are based on how beer & whine have been made for centuries. Nowadays over a dozen of companies are working on this and several have the first large scale factories which can convert cellulose into ethanol up & running. Basically the technology for third generation bio-fuels based on plant waste is out of the laboratory stage.Its actually really easy to convert cellulose to ethanol. That isn't the problem. The problem is the energy calculations. They need to put vast amounts of energy into the conversion. This is not an industry process efficiency issue. Its the basic chemistry, which won't change. So, you now have something that might make sense as a an energy storage mechanism for non-persistent renewable energy, like solar or wind, but you don't have a primary fuel.
Why nor hear from an expert?Expert in what? Speaking narrative on youtube? Not to say he said a lot of false information, at least in second video which I partially watched.
What information in the second video is false?
Mtdoc, quoting that pile of trash would be an insult to the intelligence of this thread's participants. Yes, humanity is probably screwed long-term if we don't reallocate resources and reduce our usage of cheap energy, but it's not going to happen on the scale that Dennis Meadows thinks. He predicted that world energy consumption would peak around last year, and then somehow dive down to pre-industrial levels, but has no explanation for how that would happen. Is he hoping for a nuclear war?
Mtdoc, quoting that pile of trash would be an insult to the intelligence of this thread's participants. Yes, humanity is probably screwed long-term if we don't reallocate resources and reduce our usage of cheap energy, but it's not going to happen on the scale that Dennis Meadows thinks. He predicted that world energy consumption would peak around last year, and then somehow dive down to pre-industrial levels, but has no explanation for how that would happen. Is he hoping for a nuclear war?
AFAIK, he has never claimed to know the exact timing of anything (and if he did and was wrong, why does that make him “a pile of trash”?). Nevertheless the Meadows et. al. 1972 Limits to Growth model forecast has been remarkably prescient.
(And BTW I didn’t quote him, I just borrowed some factual pics from a blog post)
Based on your language, you seem to have an overly emotional attachment to the idea that there can be uninterrupted infinite growth on a finite planet. It’s ok, it’s a common ailment.
You are still ignoring that 3rd generation bio-fuels don't need any fertilizer because it piggy-bags along with food production (which does need fertilizer).That is non-sensical. If it piggy backs on food production (and what exactly does that mean) - then it DOES require large fossil fuel inputs. The biomass simply would not be available on any meaningful scale without fossil fuel inputs.
You are essentially trying to make a "free energy" argument.
It's like mounting a windmill on the roof of my car and claiming the electricity produced does not require any fossil fuels - after all it's just piggy backing on the car...
Once again - large fossil fuel inputs are an absolute requirement for any large scale crop yields - whether for food or fuel.
If you disagree then please provide a documented example of large scale biofuel production done without fossil fuel inputs.
The earth's land surface area is ~ 150e6 km² (**), total world energy consumption is about 140 TWh per year (*), assuming that at any time only 1/3 of 1/3 (***) of that surface is being fully irradiated by the sun, if we put on average 1m² of PV per km², that would be 150e6[km²]*0.1[kW/km²]/3/3 = 1.66 GW => 14.6 TWh/year. It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
(**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
(***) I pulled that figure out of thin air: only half the earth sees the sun, and only a fraction of that half is irradiated ~ perpendicularly.
The graph you presented appears to be based on 40 year old data. Any reason you are not presenting something with more recent data? We certainly have it.
World population will continue to increst to 10 billion and remain steady.
The graph you presented appears to be based on 40 year old data. Any reason you are not presenting something with more recent data? We certainly have it.I agree. Using data from a dooms-day preacher isn't accurate.QuoteWorld population will continue to increst to 10 billion and remain steady.More likely to decline. Some countries will see a severely shrinking population in the next few decades. In Europe a lot of children where born after WW2 and this generation is about to die. For example: In the Netherlands the increase in population is already driven by people migrating to the country and not due to birth of children. People with luxury and jobs don't seem to have much interest in making babies.
With the rate we are consuming electricty nuclear is the best solution we have.
The earth's land surface area is ~ 150e6 km² (**), total world energy consumption is about 140 TWh per year (*), assuming that at any time only 1/3 of 1/3 (***) of that surface is being fully irradiated by the sun, if we put on average 1m² of PV per km², that would be 150e6[km²]*0.1[kW/km²]/3/3 = 1.66 GW => 14.6 TWh/year. It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
ANd to do what you are proposing would take all of the copper, silicon iron, aluminum and concrete that’s ever been mined or poured int he history of the world.
And then you have another problem..... Since you would be captureing so much of the suns energy to produce electrity will three be enough of he sun’s energy available for plants and for the growing of food.
Remember your physics...... Conservation of energy. Or do you want to live in a world with enough electricity and not enough food?
ANd to do what you are proposing would take all of the copper, silicon iron, aluminum and concrete that’s ever been mined or poured int he history of the world.
And then you have another problem..... Since you would be captureing so much of the suns energy to produce electrity will three be enough of he sun’s energy available for plants and for the growing of food.
The earth's land surface area is ~ 150e6 km² (**), total world energy consumption is about 140 TWh per year (*), assuming that at any time only 1/3 of 1/3 (***) of that surface is being fully irradiated by the sun, if we put on average 1m² of PV per km², that would be 150e6[km²]*0.1[kW/km²]/3/3 = 1.66 GW => 14.6 TWh/year. It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
(**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
(***) I pulled that figure out of thin air: only half the earth sees the sun, and only a fraction of that half is irradiated ~ perpendicularly.
ANd to do what you are proposing would take all of the copper, silicon iron, aluminum and concrete that’s ever been mined or poured int he history of the world.
And then you have another problem..... Since you would be captureing so much of the suns energy to produce electrity will three be enough of he sun’s energy available for plants and for the growing of food.
Remember your physics...... Conservation of energy. Or do you want to live in a world with enough electricity and not enough food?
I have no words EDIT: actually I have some. If you think that we won't have enough sun energy left for plants after covering 10ppm of the land (let's even make it tenfold of that), I have doubts about your sanity.
The graph you presented appears to be based on 40 year old data.
Using World Heath Data from the past 250 years indicates the graphs you have are wrong.
World population will continue to increst to 10 billion and remain steady. What will continue to grow will be the consumption of energy, specificity electrica energy.
You keep turning the argument around.
I can go to a farm and point my finger at the waste which is available to make bio-fuel from.
I agree. Using data from a dooms-day preacher isn't accurate.
It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption[/b]. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption[/b]. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
Your assumptions and calculations are wildly incorrect.
It would only take PV panels covering approximately 0.5% of the Earth's land to provide all of society's electricity needs. Even if electricity demand increased by 10X with wider EV adoption, it would still mean just 5%. No one has ever proposed that all human energy needs should be met with PV.
The black spots on the map below represent how much land would need to be covered with PV to cover current electricity demand. (FWIW - I do not think this will ever happen for many reason's but not because it's not theoretically possible)
...
It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption[/b]. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
Your assumptions and calculations are wildly incorrect.
It would only take PV panels covering approximately 0.5% of the Earth's land to provide all of society's electricity needs. Even if electricity demand increased by 10X with wider EV adoption, it would still mean just 5%. No one has ever proposed that all human energy needs should be met with PV.
The black spots on the map below represent how much land would need to be covered with PV to cover current electricity demand. (FWIW - I do not think this will ever happen for many reason's but not because it's not theoretically possible)
...It sounds as if you didn't notice notice that his number is much lower than yours. 10m²/km² is 10 ppm or 0.001%. covering 0.5% sounds like insanely high number. Global land area is 1.483e+14 m2
Boiling water FTW