Population control to conserve upon energy

Uh no. Europe uses much less energy than the US. The US can therefore obviously use less if they would want to. Or is Europe part of the havenots?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Europe is too freaking smart for it's own good. Energy wise, Europe (especially the likes of the nuclear portion of France) is at least a decade more advanced than the US, as well as cleaner and thereby safer.

The notion that uneducated and/or diseducated Americans are going to change their ways any time soon is a joke, as we are as a whole not even smart enough to realize that we're consuming upon average ten fold greater artificially produced energy than are the folks of greater Europe, at least 100 fold more than China, and/or perhaps a thousand fold greater than 90% of Earth's population.

So, Europe may be as a whole an energy havenot, but otherwise far superior to the facts of life and towards the moral responsibility of sharing what remaining resources there are, as opposed to the GW Bush policy of screw-thy-neighbor, of his "so what's the difference" (especially if they've got or would care to use oil).

I personally believe that by having thousands of community class nuclear reactors beats having a few monstrous energy utilities that can't insure the future nor adequately survive a regional oops. In other words, as in this instance, bigger is not necessarily better.

Fusion via lunar He3 or 3He is something altogether promising, although as long as oil and coal can be extracted, and subsequently converted into whatever we need it to be, as such I don't foresee the near future of fusion becoming a reality.

Thus again, the notion of reducing Earth's population seems inevitable, whereas even the 10% level of population will become an energy stretch if the trend of exceeding a kilowatt/soul keeps expanding into accommodating all that survive. At the level of 10 kw/soul (representing a significant reduction in what the upper 1% class currently consumes) and lo and behold, if all the remaining 600 million folks desire to having the same amount of energy (10 kw/hr), as such we're right back at the 6 terawatt demand, and if we actually wanted to survive in style, as such 60 terawatts will do just fine and dandy.

A small privet jet, hauling a couple of folks about at roughly 3.33 miles/gallon, while cruising along at 500 knots is obviously consuming 150 GPH, and that's not including whatever it takes for the energy demand of maintaining the crew, the hangar and of all it takes as to keeping that jet up to standards, nor even of what it requires as to obtaining the oil in the first place, of process that into jet fuel, transporting it, storing it and delivering it for consumption.

Kerosene (jet fuel as consumed by efficient small engines) offers roughly 36 MJ/kg or 123,000 btu/gallon (36 kw/gallon/hr * 150 = 5.4 MW/hr), of course in addition to the jet fuel, that's also consuming and converting a truly horrific amount of O2/N2 into artificial CO2 that the rest of us snookered fools get to choke down while we enjoy the global warming climatic changes. If that privet jet were utilized but one hour per day, that's merely an average of 112.5 kw/hr/soul as just for accommodating those two passengers, and sometimes that jet has but one or no passengers, which offsets for the few times when there are 6 passengers, and then there's whatever the other 23 hours worth of the day will require in terms of those kw/hr.

So, clearly striving for an average of 10 kw/hr/soul is going to become somewhat testy, whereas the 100 kw/hr/soul should due quite nicely. Thus we'll soon need at least 60 terawatts at the 10% level of population, and even that's counting on folks not being greedy nor at war. What do you think the honest chances are, of that ever coming to past?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.