On Energy and the End of Civilization ----Warren D. Smith Mar 2001--------- At the 1990-decade's rate of consumption [International Energy Annual 1995, DOE/EIA-0219, http://www.eia.doe.gov/international; Energy statistics yearbook 1993, UN dept economic and social info & policy analysis, statistical division, NY 1995; BP-Amoco statistical review of world energy June 1999; http://www.bpamoco.com] all reasonably well-proved recoverable reserves of fuels will run out as follows: FUEL YEARS BEFORE USED UP %CONTRIB TO PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCTION coal 270 40 crude oil 40-50 27 natural gas 60-70 21 uranium 40-50 6 (Coal is 85% of fossil fuel energy reserves, and that include "oil shale" and "heavy oil" tar sands which are not currently commercially mined... and may never be since it is not clear one can extract more energy from them than the amount of energy it takes to mine them.) However, since the USA's per capita energy consumption is presently about 5.5 times the world's per capita rate, if the rest of the world "catches up" to the USA, these numbers-of-years-left figures would decrease by a factor of 5.5. Furthermore, USA energy consumption per capita may continue to increase. Also, if world population continues to double every 40 years or so, then that will cause a further decrease. Of course, more reserves could be discovered. However a mathematical model by M.King Hubbert for oil that incorporates models of future discoveries (this model had been highly successful for predicting the end of Texas, Pennsylvania, and USA-wide oil production, but now is being applied to the world as a whole) also predicts run-out in about the year 2050. More precisely: a peak in production will be reached sometime between 2010-2020, there will not be a sudden discontinuity, that is an oversimplification. [See Scientific American March 1998 special issue on Oil and references therein. Article by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrhre: "The End of Cheap Oil": quote: "Every year for the past two decades the industry has pumped more oil than it has discovered, and production will soon be unable to keep up with rising demand."] Dependence on coal is causing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere - it is presently about 1.3 times larger than it was before the industrial age began [it had held steady at about 280 ppm from AD 900 to AD 1700, but now is about 360 ppm; F.Joos: Europhysics News 27,6 (1996) 213-218] and presumably this will increase to 2 or 3 times pre-industrial level if coal use continues. Thus we are performing a vast planet-scale bio/climactic experiment with unknown consequences. One suggestion has been to pump CO2 deep into former natural gas formations, or anyhow underground - problem solved. Even if that works and is economical, though, we would THEN be acting to PERMANENTLY GET RID of maybe 2800 ppm (i.e. 2.8%) of the oxygen O2 in our atmosphere instead of increasing CO2 by 560 ppm (here we take account of the fact O2 is only 20% of the atmosphere and I am measuring the O2 diminution as a percent of O2 not percent of all air). Of course since coal and other fossil fuels also contain hydrogen, more O2 is got rid of than this, but the H2O and CO2 produced are presently not being permanently sequestered underground and hence could be used to regenerate O2 eventually, thanks to photosynthetic processes. That O2-elimination too would be one hell of a planet-wide bio/climactic experiment. So either way you are pushing natural limits and messing with the whole planet. A different opinion piece by me has explained why "fusion energy" is a boondoggle that won't work. Yet another considered "solar energy" and concluded that satisfying human energy needs via solar would be an enormous engineering feat, perhaps an impossible one. So - the conclusion is stark: Civilization as we know it (assuming you consider oil to be a key ingredient of such civilization - without oil it is hard to imagine how there could be cheap air, automobile, and truck transport, and hence much of an economy in which goods need to be transported - nor could there be much of a plastics or chemical industry, for which crude oil is an essential raw material.. then there's modern mechanized agriculture...) is going to end in about the year 2050, and even if the vanishing of oil can somehow be handled, we've still only got 200 or so years left as an energy-intensive civilization. I personally think that the combined stress of running out of oil and running out of a lot of fresh water (e.g. the Ogalalla aquifer underlying the USA great plains, is being pumped at rates far in excess of replenishment rates and will also run dry around 2050) will cause a crisis about the year 2050. So: either we have to switch to new energy sources, or cut back drastically on population or per capita energy consumption - or achieve incredibly impossible solar-engineering feats - or all of the above. BUT, there seems to be a known way out that does NOT require a huge engineering effort: Breeder reactors. These nuclear reactors enable the use of U-238 (converted by neutron irradiation into fissile Pu-239) and Th-232 (converted to fissile U-233) as fuel, not just the (far rarer) U-235. This will enable energy production at current rates for 1000s of years using only known reserves of Thorium and Uranium. Breeder reactors work. One was in large scale commercial use in France... only problem is: "in June 1997 France said it would scrap their highly controversial $4.7B Superphenix nuclear fast-breeder, saying it was too costly and of doubtful value." A French govt report in 1996 concluded it had cost the state $12B. The planned shutdown in 2005 will cost $20B more. This was the world's largest fast-breeder but it had managed to operate for only 6 months through 1997 since it began generating power in 1985. Oops. France's electricity is 80% nuclear due to French leadership thinking it had no other choice. There had been a major sodium leak at Superphenix in 1987 but it had re-begun operating in 1994 after a 4-year layoff. Britain simiarly had closed its Dounreay fast-breeder in 1995. The US operated an experimental fast breeder at Shippingport Atomic Power Station in the 1970s and early 1980s. The reactor had a core that was designed to produce Uranium-233 from Thorium-232. Although it showed no signs of ending its useful life, the experiment was ended due to budgetary concerns and interest in analyzing the core to see if breeding had occurred. When analyzed, the core indeed contained 1.3% more fuel than it had originally contained. Japan in Dec 1995 shut down their Monju fast breeder, which took 12 years and $4.91 billion to build, after a massive coolant sodium (very flammable!) leak. There was a furor over cover-ups of the incident with doctored videos and incomplete reports. But even 1000s of years hopefully obtainable via breeder reactors is a very small amount of time compared to the human species's span (over 30000 years at least so far). So really, the only LONG TERM energy solution is to rely on RENEWABLE energy sources, i.e. solar, and to cut back human population. My question is: if this is the only known technically feasible way to preserve civilization, and not much time is left - then why is the USA apparently committed to having nothing to do with breeder reactors? Part of the answer is the fear of nuclear proliferation due to cheap bred U-233 and Pu-239 (which can be used to make bombs) if breeder reactors are further developed and built everywhere. I too fear proliferation, but the fact is, we have no choice. There simply is no other energy technology that is known to work. By abandoning breeder research, we are simply relegating the world - once it finally dawns on everybody at the last second that we have to switch to breeders - to operating with maybe 30 fewer years of breeder research to fall back on, than could have been. This is simply tremendous irresponsibility. And why is the USA having little to do with efforts to achieve zero or negative population growth? Part of that answer is: stupidity and religions.