[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Drastic Energy Contraction Ahead

Fri Apr 17 03:08:01 MDT 2009

by Paul Smith

Culture Change (April 15 2009)

Editor's Introduction: The author notes that a more cheerful title might
be "On the Way to a Sustainable Future". I could go for that
substitution. Unfortunately, we are not "on the way" until
overpopulation is checked somehow. In this article the uncomfortable
realities of the effects of immigration on US population growth are
quantified. Yet, there are two problems with focusing on them too much.

Before identifying them, consider the fact that up to three quarters of
population growth going on in the US is from immigrants and their higher
fertility rate. But this should not imply that the US (or the world)
will be able to solve its problems by somehow cutting way back on
immigration.

Additionally, focusing on immigrants' population growth is a good way to
mislead ourselves: (1) Crash is happening anyway; government policies
cannot stop petrocollapse and climate distortion, both of which will cut
population size drastically. (2) Focusing on immigration or even
overpopulation at this time can distract us from urgent preparations for
local self-reliance, which is our only future.

While the motives of the Heritage Foundation may be usually suspect,
there can come a time soon when some of us find more and more
commonality in the future now taking shape. So while Paul Smith's
article cites the Heritage Foundation and touches on controversial
ground, it is essential that we deal with the issues he presents. He
reminds us that energy consumption itself is not on the table, and that
switching energy technologies to maintain consumption is a false hope.
- JL

The message has gone forth loud and clear in the halls of Congress, in
the White House, in the media, and in the reports of reputable
scientific commissions. Our nation and the nations of the world must
take drastic measures to reduce the atmospheric pollution resulting from
the burning of fossil fuels. Otherwise the planet and all of its
inhabitants will suffer the dire consequences of harmful climate change.

Our nation is now in the throes of an energy contraction, but the energy
contraction following the current contraction will be much more profound
in its consequences than anything that we are now experiencing.

Political leaders in the United States, both at the national level and
the state level have responded to the threat by advocating that
renewable energy sources be developed as a means of reducing our
dependence on the pollution-generating fossil fuels. The leaders haven't
proposed that the overall use of energy be reduced, but rather that the
renewable energy merely substitutes for the energy derived from fossil
fuels.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has reported that the
total energy consumption in the United States in 2007 was 101.605
quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs). About 85% of US energy
consumption was due to the burning of fossil fuels, primarily coal,
natural gas, and petroleum.

Nuclear power provided 8.28% of the total, and renewable energy
(Biofuels, waste, wood derived fuel, geothermal, hydroelectric, and
solar/PV, and wind power) provided 6.72% of the total. Solar/PV and wind
power combined contributed less than one percent of the total energy
used in the US in 2007.

Solar and wind power energy could be doubled and then doubled again and
the amount of energy in relation to total US energy need would still be
relatively inconsequential. You wouldn't know that if you listened to
our esteemed leaders in Washington DC. Energy from those two sources is
certainly valuable and in time the amount of it might possibly be
increased to more than five percent, especially if the total energy use
is reduced.

In the meantime, the amount of petroleum being used is now topping
Hubbert's Peak with no where to go but down the other side. Our reliance
on fossil fuels for such a large amount of our energy is fouling the
atmosphere and causing very harmful changes in the climate. Coal is no
panacea. The coal that has recently been presented by the coal industry
as "Clean Coal", will very likely never be commercially viable.

Given the circumstances described above, a reasonable energy program
might include a 25% reduction of the 86.25 quadrillion BTUs of fossil
fuel now used in the US annually. That would reduce the current US total
energy consumption of 101.605 quadrillion BTUs per year to about eighty
quadrillion BTUs. Further reduction would probably be necessary at a
later time in order to bring the fossil fuel consumption in the US to a
sustainable level.

How could such a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels be
achieved? Some sources have advocated a substantial increase in the
development of nuclear power. But that is very controversial and for
good reasons, including the nuclear waste disposal problem and the long
time needed to rev up to full operation.

The political and economic leaders and general citizenry would need to
acquire a very complete understanding of the necessity for the endeavor
and a very determined commitment to carry it out. Implementing the
energy reduction would require significant changes in transportation
methods, residential locations, production and manufacturing functions,
and in construction and remodeling of buildings. Even more importantly,
it would require substantial progress in stabilizing the population.

Without population stabilization or progress in that direction, most
other efforts to achieve a sustainable economy would be largely in vain.
The Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress appear
to be dedicated to implementing so-called "comprehensive immigration
reform", which is code for granting amnesty to the estimated twelve to
fifteen million illegal aliens now in the country.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, in an article dated May 15
2006, estimated that granting amnesty to the illegal aliens currently in
the country would result in the addition of 66 million people to the US
population within twenty years. Those new citizens and permanent
residents after receiving amnesty would, in turn, be able to sponsor
minor children, spouses, and parents residing in their home countries to
enter and attain legal residency in the US

Rector's estimate did not include the aliens that would enter the
country illegally following the amnesty. It is probable that those
illegal aliens, along with the aliens that were granted amnesty, would
increase the US population by over 100 million people within twenty years.

As already noted, our nation will experience a drastic energy
contraction some time after the current contraction. Although the
sequence and timing of events leading to the contraction is uncertain,
the contraction itself is unavoidable. What is optional is how it comes
about - how it develops.

Our political, economic, and industrial leaders need to instigate
actions to reduce the use of energy, especially fossil fuel energy, to a
sustainable level. That might enable our descendants living on the
future side of Hubbert's Peak [global maximum of oil extraction] to
actually enjoy living conditions that are better than the ones that
presently exist.