September 25, 2005
Response on Sustainable Development-BECKER
Thanks for correcting two errors: the name of the energy consulting company I referred to is Cambridge Energy Research Associates (my friend, Dan Yergin, the head of this company, will be unhappy I made this mistake). BRCA1 AND BRCA2 are the correct names of the gene mutations that induce breast cancer.
I do not know where the calculations came from about the enormous number of nuclear plants necessary to replace oil, but I believe they are way off. I mentioned nuclear power as replacing oil in the context of hydrogen fuel cells becoming a substitute for the internal combustion engine. No work in this area that I have seen provides any detailed estimates yet of the nuclear power needed, but those given are far below the ones stated in the comment. Nuclear electric power would mainly replace coal and natural gas, and already 20% of the power in US is from nuclear plants, and about 70% in France.
I do not fully exclude catastrophes from my analysis since I mention that nuclear power would reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that appear to be causing global warming. I exclude terrorism and wars since I admit I do not know how to link their likelihood to economic development and medical advances. Medical advances reduce the consequences of pandemics and probably biological warfare, but economic development probably raises the spread of nuclear and other destructive weaponry.
I certainly do not believe nor did I state that economic development of Africa and other terribly poor regions is unimportant because of medical advances. Of course, economic development is also important, but it remains very possible if poor countries follow India and China and begin to adopt the right economic policies. However, bad health is terrible too, and also a cause of limited economic development, so it is worth emphasizing that the health of the populations of most poor nations has greatly advanced during the past several decades.
Posted by becker at 11:08 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/978
Comments
Wouldn't medical advances increase the danger and likelihood of biological warfare, rather than the reverse? It seems to me that the science is the same, only the specific use differs.
Posted by Ray at September 25, 2005 11:48 AM | direct link
The calculations for the number of nuclear plants needed to replace oil are mine, Dr. Becker. I'm not pro or anti nuclear power, but even though it was hasty, I think my estimate is fairly accurate.
Oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar and wind power each have unique properties but they all come from the sun. Oil is used to power cars for a couple key reasons:
1. It's easy to transport
2. It stores energy well
The amount of energy America uses moving cars, trucks and busses along our roads each day is equal to three times the current capacity of our electrical energy grid. It doesn't matter how electrical power will be used to move vehicles around in the future, our electrical supply will have to quadruple if it is going to replace oil.
I would like to see a serious study into this matter, but not even politics or big brains can change the laws of thermodynamics and electro-magnetism...
Posted by monkyboy at September 26, 2005 01:16 AM | direct link
I believe there are two more pertinent reposts to the sustainability of energy consumption problem.
First, Peter Huber's point that what matters is not the short-term cost of energy, but the long-term cost of energy acquisition.
One of our savant blogger hosts mentions that increasing prices fetched by energy in recent years means that the rewards for aquiring usable energy will be increasing, thereby increasing proven reserves. True enough.
$25/bbl prices are enough for Canadian producers to harvest oil shale, and they're slated to double production through this decade.
One of the most impressive of recent pilot programs in the US west has oil shale extracted in situ, using creative common-sense to keep ground water from contamination. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html
US sources are vast under this regime of oil extraction.
Estimates vary, but one surmises that 1 trillion barrels is recoverable - up from 500 billion twenty years ago, and equal to all current proven reserves.
Discussion
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=597
RAND and Dept of Energy report
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html
Posted by Orson at September 27, 2005 02:09 PM | direct link
