Coal as an Energy Source

[boatgeek]

An easier way to help the environment is reversing Population growth, but no one is willing to do that so I gave up caring after 30 years of being an Environmentalist.

The best way to reverse population growth worldwide is to support (a) family planning initiatives and (b) health programs in the developing world. Unfortunately, both of those items are very heavily politicized at the moment so they're hard to get support for. The developed world largely already has birth rates below replacement.

 

[Spacedog49Krell]

WOW, LA allowed the Incineration of Garbage?

Our first home in LA shared an incinerator between two homes and an apartment. We rarely used it and only for paper. It did reduce the garbage volume, but the ash disposal was worse than the paper.

 

[Art Upton]

An easier way to help the environment is reversing Population growth, but no one is willing to do that so I gave up caring after 30 years of being an Environmentalist.

Well they did, with both the "pill" and another method I won't mention

 

[Alan15578]

An easier way to help the environment is reversing Population growth, but no one is willing to do that so I gave up caring after 30 years of being an Environmentalist.

Yes, but what is the optimal human population of the earth?

 

[Bravo52]

I’m not sure society is willing to accept reduced life-styles that limited population growth supports. Free energy by any means would support a lower population density for sure. Coal or otherwise.

 

[jderimig]

I’m not sure society is willing to accept reduced life-styles that limited population growth supports. Free energy by any means would support a lower population density for sure. Coal or otherwise.

The Kaya identity is pretty elegant and simple when it comes to establishing the bounds of emission reduction (more on that later). But to sum up.

Globally....
If the decarbonization rate is < gdp growth rate emissions increase.
If the decarbonization rate is > gdp growth rate emissions decrease.
Constraint: gdp growth needs to be sufficiently positive , otherwise the political upheaval will largely end decarbonization.

 

[Spacedog49Krell]

Yes, but what is the optimal human population of the earth?

According to Wikipedia, a 1.5 - 2 billion population is optimal. Other papers I've read push the upper end to 3 billion. If you read the climate change solution proposals, they all talk about going back to an economy similar to 1960. When approximately 3 billion people populated the earth. It's a veiled reference to a drastic population reduction.

 

[jmcl01]

From high school & college biology, I seem to recall that overpopulation leads to one or more of three things:
1) Disease
2) Famine
3) A predator (war?)
Climate change is just another mechanism in the process

 

[jmcl01]

Thomas Malthus was writing about it in the 19th century, he was off by orders of magnitude on the size of the population needed to cause his predictions to kick in

 

[boatgeek]

I’m not sure society is willing to accept reduced life-styles that limited population growth supports. Free energy by any means would support a lower population density for sure. Coal or otherwise.

I think the biggest challenge with that is the ratio of workers to retirees (and children). Significant industrial automation would help, though we'd need to see really major changes in economic structures to support more people actually being in human care jobs with living wages. That's far beyond the scope of this thread, though.

 

[Alan15578]

According to Wikipedia, a 1.5 - 2 billion population is optimal. Other papers I've read push the upper end to 3 billion. If you read the climate change solution proposals, they all talk about going back to an economy similar to 1960. When approximately 3 billion people populated the earth. It's a veiled reference to a drastic population reduction.

I have not had time to check that out. I suspect that even 1.5B is beyond optimal. Of course I have not defined optimal, and I think the discussion of the factors and definition of said optimal would be more interesting than the number itself. In the context of this tread, Energy and resource consumption would be obvious factors, but the definition should go well beyond that. The 1960s was probably a good time for the US economy, but I was thinking of maybe back to the Renaissance?, although The Industrial Revolution and computer revolution are good times to include with moderation...

I would not suggest any governmental action to drastically reduce population. However, the "optimal" population reduction rate could be discussed. For example a Thanos like decimation of population would be awful and it might take many generations for the building trades to recover.

 

[Alan15578]

I’m not sure society is willing to accept reduced life-styles that limited population growth supports. Free energy by any means would support a lower population density for sure. Coal or otherwise.

What? To my mind a large population severely limits life-styles, and free energy would tend to support larger populations.

 

[Alan15578]

Thomas Malthus was writing about it in the 19th century, he was off by orders of magnitude on the size of the population needed to cause his predictions to kick in

He and, many economists, address the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth, not the optimal population.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

According to Wikipedia, a 1.5 - 2 billion population is optimal. Other papers I've read push the upper end to 3 billion. If you read the climate change solution proposals, they all talk about going back to an economy similar to 1960. When approximately 3 billion people populated the earth. It's a veiled reference to a drastic population reduction.

I'd like some of the elites that are pushing this to volunteer...
(Not that I don't think we need to care about our planet and ourselves, but when the likes of Gates, et al, start on that subject, I get a bit irritable!)

 

[boatgeek]

I have not had time to check that out. I suspect that even 1.5B is beyond optimal. Of course I have not defined optimal, and I think the discussion of the factors and definition of said optimal would be more interesting than the number itself. In the context of this tread, Energy and resource consumption would be obvious factors, but the definition should go well beyond that. The 1960s was probably a good time for the US economy, but I was thinking of maybe back to the Renaissance?, although The Industrial Revolution and computer revolution are good times to include with moderation...

I would not suggest any governmental action to drastically reduce population. However, the "optimal" population reduction rate could be discussed. For example a Thanos like decimation of population would be awful and it might take many generations for the building trades to recover.

Any reasonable definition of the optimal carrying capacity of the earth would need to include industrialization. Nobody is going back to the Renaissance. We like pepper too much. And definitely nobody in any kind of serious policy-making role is talking about Thanos-type events. They're talking about gradual changes in population due to people making their own choices about how many kids to have. When you increase education and child survival rates, the fertility rates go down.

Side note about building trades. About a decade ago (man I feel old!), we took the family to Switzerland. One thing that stood out to me was that every single family home construction site had a little whirly crane on it, a little brother to the crane you see here at major construction sites. Apparently, labor in Switzerland is too expensive to be worth using humans to lift building materials into place. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about with major changes to the economic systems.

I'd like some of the elites that are pushing this to volunteer...
(Not that I don't think we need to care about our planet and ourselves, but when the likes of Gates, et al, start on that subject, I get a bit irritable!)

Again, nobody is talking about forcing people not to have kids. China tried that, and it's a demographic disaster on various levels. They're talking about giving people the option to have fewer kids. It turns out that when you give people the option, they often take it.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I read not too long ago that the human population growth is slowing and population is likely to plateau and begin to decrease slowly. I don’t have the source, and don’t remember specific details, so feel free to be skeptical. But I think the timeframe for the plateau was well within this century, like maybe in another 30 years, and the maximum population was expected to be below 10 billion. I don’t think population is dropping to 1 or 2 billion anytime soon, but it should start coming down slowly in this century.

Population growth due to birth rate is already negative in a lot of developed countries. Some countries only grow due to immigration. I think that’s true for a lot of European countries, and it may even be true of the U.S. Negative population growth can cause demographic problems, like not enough current workers to support retired workers. It can depress GDP growth. Places like Japan that don’t welcome immigration are having some of these demographic problems. So is China where they’ve had a history of misguided population control.

 

[NTP2]

Again, nobody is talking about forcing people not to have kids. China tried that, and it's a demographic disaster on various levels. They're talking about giving people the option to have fewer kids. It turns out that when you give people the option, they often take it.

If you spin it as not paying for expensive kids people will probably listen.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

If you spin it as not paying for expensive kids people will probably listen.

You don’t even have to spin it that way. People come to that conclusion on their own, because it is true. In developed countries it costs a lot of money to raise kids, especially if one parent gives up a job to be a full-time parent, or if childcare is needed instead. Things like higher education cost a lot, and often parents have to invest more now to help their kids get fully launched to self-sufficiency in a complex and expensive society. It doesn’t necessarily mean people don’t want to have kids, but sometimes they delay long enough to feel like they are ready (good job, decent house, stable marriage, adequate finances, etc.), that they might actually miss their chance or they might only have the ability to have one or two, even if they would have liked more.

 

[boatgeek]

I read not too long ago that the human population growth is slowing and population is likely to plateau and begin to decrease slowly. I don’t have the source, and don’t remember specific details, so feel free to be skeptical. But I think the timeframe for the plateau was well within this century, like maybe in another 30 years, and the maximum population was expected to be below 10 billion. I don’t think population is dropping to 1 or 2 billion anytime soon, but it should start coming down slowly in this century.

Population growth due to birth rate is already negative in a lot of developed countries. Some countries only grow due to immigration. I think that’s true for a lot of European countries, and it may even be true of the U.S. Negative population growth can cause demographic problems, like not enough current workers to support retired workers. It can depress GDP growth. Places like Japan that don’t welcome immigration are having some of these demographic problems. So is China where they’ve had a history of misguided population control.

This is one such chart, from the UN via Wikipedia:

And a map, with green being negative population growth and blue being positive population growth:

If you spin it as not paying for expensive kids people will probably listen.

People are smart enough to figure the economic benefits/costs out for themselves. In general, children are an economic benefit in rural areas since they can provide farm labor relatively easily and are an economic cost in urban areas. Access to family planning is the issue in many places in the world. Thee are also a number of social factors (eg many cultures where sons are expected to care for their parents in old age but daughters care for their husband's parents).

 

[dr wogz]

Population growth due to birth rate is already negative in a lot of developed countries. Some countries only grow due to immigration. I think that’s true for a lot of European countries, and it may even be true of the U.S. Negative population growth can cause demographic problems, like not enough current workers to support retired workers. It can depress GDP growth. Places like Japan that don’t welcome immigration are having some of these demographic problems. So is China where they’ve had a history of misguided population control.

We are seeing this in Quebec, Canada. We have an aging population, and are having issues finding workers, especially healthcare workers to take care of said ageing population. We are actively seeking out [qualified!!] immigrants to fill these rolls (to the tune of a half million per year target). Sadly, we (the west) seem to be on an anti-immigration kick..

 

[NTP2]

You don’t even have to spin it that way. People come to that conclusion on their own, because it is true. In developed countries it costs a lot of money to raise kids, especially if one parent gives up a job to be a full-time parent, or if childcare is needed instead. Things like higher education cost a lot, and often parents have to invest more now to help their kids get fully launched to self-sufficiency in a complex and expensive society. It doesn’t necessarily mean people don’t want to have kids, but sometimes they delay long enough to feel like they are ready (good job, decent house, stable marriage, adequate finances, etc.), that they might actually miss their chance or they might only have the ability to have one or two, even if they would have liked more.

True I heard that a kid is 1 million dollars over the entire lifetime.

 

[Tyeeking]

True I heard that a kid is 1 million dollars over the entire lifetime.

More if they get into rocketry.

 

[NTP2]

More if they get into rocketry.

My parents say that a lot, they love me

 

[OverTheTop]

True I heard that a kid is 1 million dollars over the entire lifetime.

Probably true these days. When our daughter turned 18 I gave her a bill for just under $300k. She just laughed. Then she realised it was what it actually cost to raise her.

 

[NTP2]

Probably true these days. When our daughter turned 18 I gave her a bill for just under $300k. She just laughed. Then she realised it was what it actually cost to raise her.

Did she pay it?

 

[boatgeek]

Probably true these days. When our daughter turned 18 I gave her a bill for just under $300k. She just laughed. Then she realised it was what it actually cost to raise her.

Hey, at least in Oz you don't have to pay the full freight of college.

(Strictly speaking we didnt' have post-18 expenses for our kids, but only because we had already filled the college fund/savings account as much as we were going to. That's still spending down reserves though.)

 

[Bravo52]

What? To my mind a large population severely limits life-styles, and free energy would tend to support larger populations.

You're mixing things up for no reason. Less population would result in lower production. Lower production will not support (eventually) higher lifestyles. The assumption is the curves will cross at some point with innovation, but predicting that point is like predicting climate change. Why do you think countries are desperate to import labor through illegal migration. It's not because we are just good people, it's because we need the labor and the resources it provides. Every country is facing that same issue. (Germany is a great example to study).

Free energy would support less population because it would just be one more thing off the plate of required resources. Imagine if we no longer needed Coal, NG or oil for energy, how much labor that would be no longer required. It's probably safe to say about 10-20% of petroleum goes to other products than energy (not counting transportation fuel), we'd still need some labor but the number would be greatly reduced.

But....you inadvertently bring up a great point. Society doesn't see things that way, they see (currently at least) more means more...

 

[Bravo52]

Probably true these days. When our daughter turned 18 I gave her a bill for just under $300k. She just laughed. Then she realised it was what it actually cost to raise her.

Yeah, but that's your fault. She'd have a good court case to sue because you brought her into the world without her consent...

 

[Bravo52]

Hey, at least in Oz you don't have to pay the full freight of college.

(Strictly speaking we didnt' have post-18 expenses for our kids, but only because we had already filled the college fund/savings account as much as we were going to. That's still spending down reserves though.)

Today, any person in America that wants to go to college free can. ANY PERSON! Not doing so is a choice. A choice either made by the parents or by the individual themselves. Both of my children went to college for free. Now I get to spend their college savings account...

 

[cwbullet]

Today, any person in America that wants to go to college free can. ANY PERSON! Not doing so is a choice. A choice either made by the parents or by the individual themselves. Both of my children went to college for free. Now I get to spend their college savings account...

That's not entirely true. Some cannot do the military thing and some do not qualify for free college.

That being said, it is inexcusable that we do not prepare our youth for service.