World Electricity Production by Source

[slo town]

It’s only unsustainable because they haven’t been properly planning & executing of grid expansion & modernization to keep pace. Restricting access to cheap fuels, mandating unsustainable periodic power sources like solar and wind, and insane levels of regulatory red tape kills potential conventional-fueled power plant plans, and have nearly eliminated any incentive to attempt to build more nuclear power plants here.

What we need to make it sustainable and cheap is to get rid of the theoretical thinkers (the “academic” elitists) who’ve never accomplished much in their lives from making all the decisions for everyone regardless of goodness of fit for the circumstances, and get successful businessmen and women who’ve made their fortunes and improved society to be actively engaged in planning and executing plans to correct the current shortcomings and adjust the trajectory for our collective future. I certainly think it’s possible.

I don't disagree with anything you said.

My issue is that I think the "human trajectory" is unsustainable. Greater and greater populations, all of whom want a nice standard of living - at some point it will require the human population to live in ant colony or bee hive-like cities.

Be it nuclear power or some miracle breakthrough, I don't see a world with unfettered human growth being livable, even though everyone will be housed in gigantic buildings of some sort, safe from the elements and wild animals, everyone having air conditioning, the internet, and a food source contained in precisely measured foil packets that are delivered right to you front door via robot. AI may even speed up this process, AI doing all "the work" while humans sit around in "luxury".

I don't see this scenario being compatible with human nature; ants or bees maybe, but not humans. The rural and/or suburban landscape as we know it will cease to exist. People will take vacations like those in the movie Total Recall.

Will it get to this point? I don't think so. It is my belief that nature will, at some point and to some extent, put the brakes on human activity; be it famine, disease, volcanoes, meteors, or an alien invasion...who knows.

Scott

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I don't disagree with anything you said.

My issue is that I think the "human trajectory" is unsustainable. Greater and greater populations, all of whom want a nice standard of living - at some point it will require the human population to live in ant colony or bee hive-like cities.

Be it nuclear power or some miracle breakthrough, I don't see a world with unfettered human growth being livable, even though everyone will be housed in gigantic buildings of some sort, safe from the elements and nature, everyone having air conditioning, the internet, and a food source contained in precisely measured foil packets that are delivered right to you front door via robot. AI may even speed up this process, AI doing all "the work" while humans sit around in "luxury".

I don't see this scenario being compatible with human nature; ants or bees maybe, but not humans. The rural and/or suburban landscape as we know it will cease to exist. People will take vacations like those in the movie Total Recall.

Will it get to this point? I don't think so. It is my belief that nature will, at some point and to some extent, put the brakes on human activity; be it famine, disease, volcanoes, meteors, or an alien invasion...who knows.

Scott

I’ve read a lot lately on this; I’m not yet sure on the how’s or whys, but between scientists and things like the UN projections for 2050 and 2100, the declining birth rates and all their other black magic calculations come to published conclusions that the world will see “peak population” sometime between 2050 and 2070 at somewhere about 10.5-11B. Then by 2100 due to a long trend of ever-declining birthrates worldwide, be back down in the low-8B to high-7B numbers and continue to decline from there.

In other words, the next 25-50 years will bring both the zenith and initial descent of maximum global load of all systems of society. Somehow, I think that’s a manageable task if the correct minds are involved.

 

[97prizm]

Coooooaaaalllllll!
All the nations who say they're "going renewable" like Germany, china are putting up some solar and wind, then do the heavy lifing with coal power plants.
The only first world nations who actually matter who are building more wind and solar and aren't backing it up with more coal capacity is the US and maybe Australia.
Any other national doing it (using more renewables and not building more coal plants) is so tiny they don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
For example China is number for wind and solar but they're also number 1 for coal as far as using and build new power plants by a lot.

All I know is that the top of the most Polluted cities in the world are in China and India. Guangzhou, Beijing, New Delhi, Shanghai, Calcutta, have air quality ao bad it's equivalent to smoking a pack a cigarettes a day IF you don't smoke.

 

[slo town]

I’ve read a lot lately on this; I’m not yet sure on the how’s or whys, but between scientists and things like the UN projections for 2050 and 2100, the declining birth rates and all their other black magic calculations come to published conclusions that the world will see “peak population” sometime between 2050 and 2070 at somewhere about 10.5-11B. Then by 2100 due to a long trend of ever-declining birthrates worldwide, be back down in the low-8B to high-7B numbers and continue to decline from there.

In other words, the next 25-50 years will bring both the zenith and initial descent of maximum global load of all systems of society. Somehow, I think that’s a manageable task if the correct minds are involved.

We can hope. What's needed is a nature induced cap on the human population, one that lasts for several decades or even a century or more. Maybe that cap will be because of declining birthrates rather than disaster, the decline in birthrates because of unexplained and irreversible sterility in either males or females, or both.

With the growth in human population we are seeing now, it is impossible for "sustainable technology" to catch up, let alone even keep up.

Scott

 

[ripcord]

We can hope. What's needed is a nature induced cap on the human population, one that lasts for several decades or even a century or more. Maybe that cap will be because of declining birthrates rather than disaster, the decline in birthrates because of unexplained and irreversible sterility in either males or females, or both.

With the growth in human population we are seeing now, it is impossible for "sustainable technology" to catch up, let alone even keep up.

Scott

Prosperity is the greatest form of birth control. Once a third world country becomes prosperous, birthrates decline precipitously.

 

[slo town]

Prosperity is the greatest form of birth control. Once a third world country becomes prosperous, birthrates decline precipitously.

I'm not throwing stones when I ask this, but what defines "prosperity". It would seem to me we've reached that point by now, if not 10 or 20 years ago.

Scott

Edit: I realized I misread your post. You said third world country, I read 1/3 of the world. At any rate, is it the third world countries who are causing global distress? I'm not so sure about that. Without question, these third world countries are under great distress, but isn't it confined within their own borders? It is my belief that the advanced societies are the ones causing planetary distress. At any rate, I'm not throwing stones.

 

[Pablo]

Hollywood nixed Nuclear. Thanks for that! There is a lesson there.

Seriously, we CAN do nuclear. And yes mistakes have been made and we can learn from those.

 

[4WD]

Hollywood nixed Nuclear. Thanks for that! There is a lesson there.

Seriously, we CAN do nuclear. And yes mistakes have been made and we can learn from those.

Better worry about keeping NG affordable and we can deploy CCS behind the GTG’s …

 

[PandaBear]

Agree. It's also the increased standard of living by once poverty stricken nations. I have no problem with people enjoying a higher standard of living. It's just that the whole situation is unsustainable.

Scott

Birthrate is declining all over the world, that should balance out.

 

[ripcord]

I'm not throwing stones when I ask this, but what defines "prosperity". It would seem to me we've reached that point by now, if not 10 or 20 years ago.

Scott

We still have a long way to go. About half the world's population still lives on less than $5.50 a day (in 2011 dollars). We've made great strides in reducing global poverty, primarily by spreading capitalism and basic economic freedom, but there is still a long way to go.

W

 

[PandaBear]

I get your point, Al, and occasionally I catch myself thinking “this would be better for everyone” but then I remember the whole point of a free market is to provide the service/product that is desired by the consumer, and that a “one-size-fits-all” approach isn’t right for everyone due to personal preference or economic strata.

Also, some visually sensitive people get migraines or other physical issues from the 60Hz flicker present in LED bulbs, and therefore seek out incandescents even though they cost them more to operate.

The 60Hz thing is not a problem if you build higher switching frequency power circuit to the LED. Gaming monitor can already refresh at 240Hz and you can't switch an LED at 240Hz? You probably just have to buy them from specialty manufacturers online instead of some cheap stuff at Walmart and Home Depot.

 

[PandaBear]

We can hope. What's needed is a nature induced cap on the human population, one that lasts for several decades or even a century or more. Maybe that cap will be because of declining birthrates rather than disaster, the decline in birthrates because of unexplained and irreversible sterility in either males or females, or both.

With the growth in human population we are seeing now, it is impossible for "sustainable technology" to catch up, let alone even keep up.

Scott

Are you endorsing the one child policy in China? It has been repealed and they are now having problems asking young people to have more than 1 kid, if they want to even get married.

The only way to reduce birth rate is high cost of living, especially childcare and home ownership / rent.

 

[slo town]

Are you endorsing the one child policy in China? It has been repealed and they are now having problems asking young people to have more than 1 kid, if they want to even get married.

The only way to reduce birth rate is high cost of living, especially childcare and home ownership / rent.

I said "nature induced cap" because of "unexplained or irreversible sterility".

Also, I'm not sure I see a problem with what I highlighted in bold.

Scott

 

[fdcg27]

World population was 4.86B in 1985 and 8.05B in 2023 (same years as OP's chart). That's a population increase of 1.66 times, yet we see energy consumption nearly triple.

Yep, unsustainable.

Scott

They want what we have.
Can't blame them for that. Running water with a wastewater system, reliable mains electricity, reliable and affordable food supplies and motorized personal transport would be a breakthrough miracle for more than half the world's population, and all of these things necessarily require energy to produce.
Things like AC and personal cars are far down the list for those in poorer nations.
The fact that energy consumption has trebled is both worrying and hopeful, since while we in the developed world may be consuming more we're also seeing increased consumption due to the advances in quality of life made in the developing world.
The answer must involve both more efficiency and nuclear power generation.

 

[ls1mike]

I have been around nuclear power my entire adult life. I slept less than 200 feet from an operational nuclear reactor for months at a time. It is the answer, but people are misinformed and scared.

 

[loneryder]

Yes because WV needs more polluted streams.

https://wvpublic.org/more-than-300-...ental Protection Agency,two years to the EPA.

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NERL&dirEntryId=238504

A lot of that is the small communities don't have proper sewage treatment capacity if at all. They are working on building and improving sewage treatment for these communities. They recently built one in a town near me.

 

[Mainia]

Not trying to be an jerk, but you could probably widen your range of news/information sources.
I read most blades have around a 20 year life span, and they are made with fiber glass and balsa wood. Also I see that approx 3000 turbines are installed each year in the US.
There are also approx 300,000 boats sold in the US each year, which many/most? are made of fibre glass-wood and not easily recyclable either, and maybe they average a 20 year lifespan as well? I don't read in the news that problems with disposal of old boats is a reason to not have boats?
I do think that lots of renewable/green energy systems could use some regulations to consider their whole lifespan to make recycling easily done for things like batteries and solar panels, and that adds expense as well, which hampers the industry.
But if you look at the global effects of fossil fuels, they aren't "better", they are very cheap energy today that is sabotaging the future. By allowing things like single use plastics and cheap disposable junk to be built anywhere labour is cheap and poor environmental regulations exist and shipped globally. And also increasing CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere leading to ever worsening wildfire seasons in Canada, melting ice caps, etc...

Show me where any large wind turbine blades last 20 years. Maybe you should look into your sourcing of info.

 

[CDX825]

Not surprising. Coal has more energy per unit than anything else. Instead of dismissing it, we should find ways to burn it cleaner.
There is an energy crisis simmering on the back burner in the Ric-DC-Baltimore corridor. They are building huge data(cloud) warehouses as fast as they can. Most of their energy comes from WV coal power plants. Power produced is pretty much at capacity. These data farms are being completed with no new capacity to be had. The electrical contractors can't hook them up because there is no capacity to be had. And WV is supposed to shut down all coal plants by 2030. Who want so take bets that will happen? Will the US be as dumb as Germany in closing down coal plants? A lot of these data farms are AWS.

Coal isn't going to make a come back. Cheap natural gas from the fracking boom has made coal very unattractive. If you want proof just get on 77 north and drive 36 miles into Ohio. One of the largest gas turbine plants in the country sits right next to the highway. It didn't exist 4 years ago and wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for all the cheap natural gas coming from the fracking going on in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

 

[Bailes1992]

The entire UK is barely 1% of global emissions so you don't really matter unfortunately.

Tell that to our idiot politicians who are forcing us out of our cars and on to completely unreliable and expensive public transport to 'save the planet'.

 

[Cujet]

Here is our 2023 score card for world electricity production. Coal is still growing and solar and wind have a small foothold. Thoughts?

https://ourworldindata.org/energy

I did not see a link to the OP's chart source. The website is worth spending some time on. As it has some fantastic interactive charts!!! It has become clear that while Europe's move to sustainable energy is laudable, it is beyond insignificant in the big picture.

It should also be noted that "cars" are a very small percentage of energy use, both here in the USA and more so worldwide. Eliminating all cars and 15 minute cities is not addressing the issue, AT ALL.