Around September 11, 2001, Smalley was already giving lectures around the country to many different types of groups; after the terrorist attacks he started a practice of, before getting into the meat of each talk, asking his audiences “what do you see as the world’s most critical problems of the next 50 years”? He would state the basic assumption of a world smoothly evolved from our own, with roughly 10 billion people as generally projected for 2050.
The top ten problem areas raised, the top seven of which were suggested in some form by each of 14 audiences, were:
- Energy
- Water
- Food
- Environment
- Poverty
- Terrorism and war
- Disease
- Education
- Democracy
- Population
He found the word “Energy” in particular was always mentioned, since 9-11. No matter what order problems were suggested in, after discussion with his audiences, it always proved true that solving the energy problem also resolved at least half of the others raised. Here “solving the energy problem” means something like providing affordable energy (2 cents/kWh?) to everybody on the planet. For example, access to water depends on energy to pump and purify or, if necessary, desalinate. Access to food depends on adequate energy-intensive fertilizers. Environmental problems – other than CO2 if fossil fuels are the source – can generally be mitigated through energy-powered cleanup; reducing energy intensity of industrial activity also reduces environmental consequences, so those two solutions go together too. And so on.
The only other problem that, if tackled first, would similarly resolve half or more of the remaining ones is population. And that’s not a solution Smalley finds acceptable. The sustainable level on the planet at US energy intensities is probably about 1 billion people: WHAT do you propose to do with the other 5.5 billion? Or the extra 9 billion there would be in 50 years? People who talk about solving the world’s problems through reducing “population” are really talking about an apocalypse. Unfortunately, he’s found audiences are extraordinarily receptive to his message, but far too ready to embrace the apocalypse as the solution!
Is this a natural human response? Smalley reminisced about going to sleep at night in the 50’s praying for thermonuclear war so he wouldn’t have to go to school – is that what’s behind this? But the responsible thing is to figure out how to avoid it…
Smalley is convinced that the “energy problem” can be solved. Scientists and engineers have a deep responsibility here, particularly in the physical sciences. He has been working tirelessly to try to get the scientific community to take up the problem and work diligently at it.
Smalley works at Rice University, in Houston, the center of the oil and gas world. Until 1971, Texas was the biggest oil exporter in the world; today Texas is the biggest energy importer in the US. World energy demand is growing relentlessly, and today oil provides the biggest fraction of supply. Oil is a unique resource – there’s more energy locked up in a liter of oil than almost anything not nuclear. Per unit mass hydrogen is better, but hydrogen requires more volume for storage.
Smalley showed a chart of projections from Shell from a decade or so ago, on oil supply. During the 1973/1979 oil shocks, oil was in fact there, but restricted by a cartel, just as the Texas railroad commission had, in earlier decades, had complete control of world oil prices through its near monopoly on cheap supply. More oil shocks will come this century, but they will be different: we will have reached the fundamental limits of inexpensive production, an irreversible peak in oil production.
Apparently in Houston rumors are going around that we may have already hit the peak. If not today, it is apparently unlikely to be more than 5 years away. Smalley referred to analysis by Matt Simmons, suggesting that Saudi Arabia’s one vast field may be at peak production capacity now, and destined irreversibly downward.
What about natural gas? It used to be believed we had abundant supply in North America, but that conventional wisdom shifted last year: it is unlikely North America will ever be self-sufficient in natural gas again. Replacing oil with natural gas would require huge investments in new Liquefied Natural Gas shipping terminals, etc. – an investment that is actually happening already, despite possible new hazards LNG shipping may introduce.
Coal is also offered as an alternative to oil – however despite there being a lot of coal in the US, it’s not necessarily economically accessible. Coal mining already produces massive environmental damage through mountaintop removal and similar large-scale open-pit style processes. And of course, coal being mainly carbon is an even worse greenhouse polluter than oil or natural gas.
Returning to the Shell projections, Smally pointed out that we are already surpassing projections from a decade or so ago due to the rapid growth of energy demand in China and India. Even this past year it’s accelerated more. But economic development for 2 billion of the planet’s people is a good thing, we shouldn’t want that to stop!
The past century had abundant oil supply, energy sufficient for enormous growth in world wealth. This century is going to be dramatically different from the last one.
Beyond the basic need for affordable energy is the environmental impact of energy use. Smalley showed an interesting variant on the “hockey stick” graphs – plotting 1000 years of global population, atmospheric CO2, and temperature extrapolations on one plot. Whatever one thinks of the temperature data form 1000 years back, the fact that all three plots track together in a sharp up-turn over the past few decades is very, very dramatic. Anybody denying a correlation has their head in the sand – which, as Smalley pointed out, includes a large contingent of conservative business groups in CO2 denial.
So, by 2050 we’ll have 10 billion people, and assuming reasonable economic growth for the world and modest energy efficiency improvements, that means somewhere around 30 to 60 terawatts (TW) of energy, or 450-900 million barrels of oil per day (current world energy use is about 200 million barrels of oil equivalent per day). Even if we can maintain fossil fuel use at present-day levels, that means we need 50% of energy production coming from renewables by 2050. Can solar, wind, geothermal meet this challenge?
Oil was the basis of prosperity in the 20th century. It cannot be oil in the 21st – what will it be?
Smalley talked about the “search for terawatts” in the new century. Energy is the planet’s biggest business – several $trillion/year (second is agriculture at $1.5 trillion, military spending is third at $0.7 trillion). And this enormous enterprise is in need of a fundamental revolution – it cannot turn on a dime, so the problems need to be resolved much more immediately than by mid century.
Smalley reviewed the oil alternatives for the new century, classifying them in two main groups: “too little”, and “nuclear”.
too little
- conservation/efficiency
- hydro
- biomass
- wind, wave, and tide (wind limited to 1 TW total)
- natural gas
- “clean coal” – there’s no extra energy from sequestration, it’s not a solution.
nuclear (including via the sun’s fusion):
- fission – waste, terrorism, and cost are problems. Even with large increases in fission power plants, there is no way they will be sufficient to meet demand.
- fusion – perhaps too difficult – cost?
- geothermal – cost? May not be enough of this
- solar terrestrial – cost
- solar power satellites – cost
- lunar solar – cost
The point is – despite their cost and difficulties, we have to look at the solutions that are at least capable of scaling to the energy supply levels we need. Solar, in some form or another, is extremely promising. 165,000 TW hit the earth continuously from the sun. Smalley showed a map of the world with small boxes – 6 3.3 TW boxes can provide 20 TWe, and only take up a small fraction of Earth’s land area.
What about transportation? The advantage of energy production as electricity is it can be transported long distances with low losses, and used directly, as opposed to transporting as mass (of hydrogen, methanol, say). Storage is more difficult. Smalley was very optimistic about 2000-mile high-voltage DC transmission lines, supporting a continental-scale system of energy production with millions of local generation and storage sites. The problem with all of this is that current technology is simply too expensive, by about a factor of ten, on both the solar generation and transmission/storage sides.
We don’t have a lot of time for this – we should really have been working on this stuff, finding less expensive solar solutions etc, 15 years ago. But there’s still some time to get it right – the future could be very bright.
To supply energy for 10^10 people we need 10 TW (electric) from new affordable clean energy sources by 2050. We don’t yet have the technology to do this (the IEA’s World Energy Outlook for 2004 agrees with this conclusion). Young people around the world should adopt this as a challenge – a sense of mission, a new “Apollo program” in energy technology.
Smalley’s specific suggestion for funding this in the United States: a “nickel and dime solution”. For FY05-FY10, add an additional 5 cents per gallon of oil, $10 billion per year, dedicated to frontier energy research among DOE, NSF, NIST, NASA, and DoD. In the following decade double the tax to 10 cents/gallon, with a similar “carbon tax” on coal and other fossil fuels. A third of the money should go to new energy research centers in US Research universities. At worst we’ll get marvelous new technologies and new industries out of the investment. At best we may solve the energy problem by 2020, and lay the basis for energy prosperity for the 21st century, and perhaps even world peace.
—-
While answering several audience questions, Smalley described his belief that there isn’t yet a deep appreciation of the seriousness of the problem. This is as big as the cold war, and requires a response of that magnitude, not the tepid support alternative energy programs have gotten in recent years (a few token millions for ineffective programs).
Smalley’s talk was stirring, and disturbing. The audience was mostly scientists and staff from a Department of Energy lab, but ironically very few there actually work on anything related to solving the energy problem Smalley described! Recent holders of the “Secretary of Energy” position have been political hacks with little real passion or understanding of the enormity of the problem here – can you imagine if “Secretary of Energy” carried the same weight as “Secretary of Defense”? We need to get beyond the token support for alternatives and put a full-out effort into all the “nuclear” solutions, but particularly addressing the cost issues for solar power. I am certain it can be done – do we have the will to make it so?
In light of the recent election, a comment made by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrre in their classic 1998 Scientific American article The End of Cheap Oil deserves some scrutiny:
United States foreign policy makes perfect sense with this in mind. Saudi Arabia gets treated with kid gloves despite having provided most of the 9-11 terrorists and having an atrocious human rights record. Sauid Arabia obliges by opening up the oil taps. Afghanistan and the 9-11 mastermind are largely forgotten. Oil-poor North Korea and its advanced nuclear weapons program is ignored while the U.S. presses for action in Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program.
And don’t forget that Bush and Cheney are former oilmen themselves. Is the oil peak the oil industry’s great big dirty secret, and have they been secretly planning for it? Will the United States itself start an apocalypse in a bid to control the remaining oil reserves? How does the President’s fundamentalist christian philosophy play into this? Could the President intentionally start The Apocalypse, believing he’s acting according to God’s will?
Bush was supposedly reelected for reasons of security, so why do I feel less secure now?
This guy’s scary:
Life After the Oil Crash.
He claims:
Of course the Good Science solutions are drilling exploration in the ANWR, Clean Coal, and nookyoular energy. Bad Science is bad for profit$. Good Science is good for profit$.
>WHAT do you propose to do with the other 5.5 billion?
The most humane thing is, just don’t replace them when they naturally pass. Already some developed countries have such a naturally low birthrate (less than replacement level) that the government takes active steps to encourage children (I saw such posters in Singapore when I visited there, in 1996).
Still, that doesn’t address the point: what do we do for the next few decades while they’re still around?
From Savinar’s website I found a link to this little story:
A LETTER FROM THE FUTURE written in 2001. Interesting reading!
Even at a fertility rate of 1.2 births per woman (Italy, lowest in Europe) it would be close to 200 years before population dropped a factor of 6. We don’t have that much time.
Mining the thermalcline from the ocean’s surface to a suitable depth is not mentioned in the article. My websearch showed this source to offer non-polluting, renewable, available “everywhere”, scalable, and doable with off the shelf technology NOW with a side benefit of pure water. Interesting its not on the list?
Behind all this is the answer to a trick question: “You are in an airplane with no place to land. You run out of gas. What do you do?”
The unsatisfactory answer is that you crash. What do you do with depleting energy supplies and overreaching populations???????????
How do you put paragraph spacings in this post? (ie–skip a line so it doesn’t run on?) bobbo
HI Bobbo,
I just typed the characters <p> after the comma up there. “P” for paragraph marker, skips a line.
I just put the characters <br> after the period there. “BR” for break I think, ends the line but doesn’t skip a line.
Or if you don’t like typing those in by hand, try playing with the “Post mode” control in your custom settings. Click on the “Comment” link next to “Options:” in the little box entitled “legalbob” on the right. Towards the bottom is “Post mode” which defaults to “HTML Formatted” (so you have to type in the <p> etc. yourself). I am not sure what the other ones are but they sound like they would format it the way you type it in.
I.e. “not enough”.
The temperature differences are too small to be able to run efficient engines – you inevitably lose most of the energy potential to efficiency losses. According to this somewhat optimistic page the maximum potential is 10 TW electric – and to do that we’d be turning over vast areas of the ocean surface with deep ocean water. Better to put solar panels on the ocean surface and generate electricity directly… The other question is costs – there is no commercially operating OTEC plant anywhere in the world yet, because they’re just too expensive.
Dear Dr. Smalley,
Thank you for telling the US Senate, and now Small Times magazine,
about your vision of an electrical grid with buckytube conductors.
A few years ago I noticed that for iron, copper, and aluminum
there was a near proportionality between price per pound,
and the quotient of electrical conductance over density.
In other words, to replace a copper conductor
with an iron one of equal length and resistance
one would need to make it six times heavier —
and iron’s price per pound is one-sixth copper’s.
Replacing it with aluminum, as has in fact been done
for most long-distance power transmission, makes it lighter —
but if I remember correctly, aluminum costs more per pound
than copper by about the same proportion.
So a dollar’s worth of conductor spanning a mile
has roughly the same conductance no matter what it is.
What I would suspect would happen with buckytubes
is that they’d be an exception.
Might replacing an aluminum conductor with them
reduce conductor mass by half, and raise the price 500-fold?
Because if that’s how it goes,
buried aluminum conductors are a better way around the sagging problem.
Another interesting energy transmission possibility, to me anyway,
is to chop the aluminum into short motor-feedable pieces,
transport it to suitably designed vehicles, have them burn it,
and transport the oxide back to the energy source.
I notice you advocate additional fossil fuel taxation
with which to subsidize research into fossil fuel replacement.
Please think again about this; and as an experiment,
if you have a publically subsidized town bus
that in principle is at your service for getting
from your home to your office and back,
you might try taking it.
Such services, or I might better say, such operations —
especially if their subsidy is specifically
taken from fuel taxes — tend to find ways of running their buses
empty, because the more drivers they leave on the road,
the securer their funding.
Your apparent expectation that smart researchers would perform well
when they are funded on a similar punishment-for-performance basis
seems to be an error.
— Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
I would just like to say that after clicking on your link I spent all weekend learning about “peak oil” and what that means to the future of our society. I barely got anything else done. Thanks a lot. ;)
I am in exactly the same boat – this has captured my attention and my imagination, and the links I’ve been clicking on are the stuff of nightmares.
Gotta say, AP, this makes the second half of the 21st century look a lot more like Mad Max than Blade Runner. How we create a spacefaring civilization out of this mess seems totally unworkable. Very depressing.
to the Peak Oil enthusiasts for several years. I don’t have a lot of respect for them. What would a petrodollar say if it could talk? “You need oil. You’ll be in trouble when it starts to decline. Nothing else works, or ever will.”
One thing they do that particularly offends me is wallow in error about the energy payback ratio, or as they like to call it, EROEI, of anything other than oil and gas. BOTE calculations readily show high payback ratios for nuclear, terrestrial concentrating solar, even SPS; but the knights who say EROEI don’t do arithmetic. They like to talk about it, and say what results they think it would give if they could do it, but they can’t, or, knowing themselves to be liars, won’t.
— Graham Cowan
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
whether you believe that suitable energy replacements exist or not.
Your boron paper is interesting, but as you noted, it’s an energy carrier, not a primary source. Some people at Sciscoop are smitten with space-based solar power. What do you think?
So after your review, do you think our political leaders are aware of this, or ignoring it? There certainly may be some exaggeration in those discussions, but boy, we have our work cut out for us even if they’re off by a decade or two… at some point fossil fuels will run out, and there’s CO2 to worry about as well!
There may be Earth-like planets where big rockets were developed before nuclear reactors, and solar power satellites with capacity totalling hundreds of gigawatts are in service. They’re selling triple the energy they were 25 years before. Perhaps one or more freak accidents have occurred (airliners crashing after flying into a microwave beam and having it interact in a more or less unanticipated way with engine electronics, or some such thing).
Despite this, they have an obviously lifesaving record in comparison to the fossil fuel powerplants they have been replacing, and no mass medium will acknowledge this, nor the public’s awareness of it, because the publically funded, who profit hugely from fossil fuels, don’t like that kind of talk.
So it seems to me fission and SPS are very parallel cases, and in this world, fission got established first.
Analogous to the putative nuclear waste issue in this world would be the putative issue of kilotonnes of stuff in high orbits that may eventually decay. If nothing is being done about it now, surely that must be evidence that no-one knows what to do!
— Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
not inexpertly mismanaged. We secured the interm government’s legal recognition by the UN just so we could establish a series of bases over 5 years, which is the time which the agreement is stand inviolate in spite of who “wins” the election. (See Joy Gordon’s article)