Americans using more fossil fuels

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-02.html

Americans using more fossil fuels

Anne M Stark, LLNL, [phone], [e-mail]
American energy use went back up in 2010 compared to 2009, when consumption was at a 12-year low. The United States used more fossil fuels in 2010 than in 2009, while renewable electricity remained approximately constant, with an increase in wind power offset by a modest decline in hydroelectricity. There also was a significant increase in biomass consumption, according to the most recent energy flow charts released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Wind power jumped from .70 quadrillion BTU, or quads, in 2009 to .92 quads in 2010. (A BTU or British Thermal Unit is a unit of measurement for energy and is equivalent to about 1.055 kilojoules). Most of that energy is tied directly to electricity generation and thus helps decrease the use of coal for electricity production. Biomass energy consumption rose from 3.88 quads to 4.29 quads. That increase was driven by ethanol use as a transportation fuel and a feedstock for industrial production. (The apparent decline in geothermal energy use is due to an accounting change by the Energy Information Administration.)

"We are still seeing the capacity additions from a wind energy boom come online," said. A.J. Simon, an LLNL energy systems analyst who develops the flow charts using data provided by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. "And renewable fuel mandates are driving the consumption of ethanol by cars and trucks."

Overall, U.S. energy use in 2010 equaled 98 quads compared to the 94.6 quads used in 2009. Most of the energy was tied to coal, natural gas and petroleum.

…

[Gregorian]

1. Fossil fuel use worldwide is going to rise significantly.

Which is why population must be stabilized and decreased. But I digress.

Here's a link to a company that has spent a hell of a lot of effort in not only accurately predicting resource use, but finding ways to restructure corporations so that they use less resources.

http://www.conservation.org/sites/celb/Pages/main.aspx

It doesn't look good. And even as we work to engineer better ways to use and convert energy, we're still going backwards. All of it population related. But that's a taboo subject, isn't it.

Also, I posted that link because somewhere in it is a section devoted to just how much fossil fuel use is expected over the next few decades.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. I don’t believe it is a taboo subject, it’s brought up here fairly frequently

On the other hand, any large decrease in global population figures will take decades at the very least. We need to significantly cut our greenhouse gas emissions much faster than that.

[Javaman]

3. it's a tough issue to discuss openly...

no one wants to touch population control with a ten foot pole.

so many historical issues boil to the surface when people start throwing around the need to control population.

Frankly, china and india are indirectly correcting this problem with their infanticide regarding the female population in their countries.

A few studies have shown that within the next 20 years, both china and india's populations will begin to level off and start to decrease soon after due to a lopsided male to female ratio in their populations.

Western nations have had their populations decrease over the past half century and African nations are seeing an upsurge due to the introduction of better medical practices.

whatever happens, nature corrects. For the most part world medicine has been just ahead of the pandemic curve.

As population increases, it becomes a matter of when, not if, when there will be another pandemic.

Eventually, the human race will die out. The earth will continue to rotate and evolve until the sun goes red giant 5 billion years from now and swallows it up.

Humans are funny. We constantly cry for the need for this or that, but rarely if ever take the action that requires to deal with a problem straight on. Then we wonder why nothing gets done.

We are a virus. We will grow and eat up all the resources until there isn't enough to support everyone.

we have two choices. either we limit population growth and live within our means or we go off world to some place else and let those who remain on earth die.

It's all rather sci-fi but in this case it's sci-non-fi.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. "or we go off world to some place else and let those who remain on earth die"

Thing is: we can't get most people to another planet.

Even if, say, Mars was habitable we'd be lucky to get a few dozen folks over there.

Sure, THEY could start populating and before long Mars would also be crowded, but none of that would affect the majority of the existing human race, which is destined to live and die on Earth.

That will remain true LONG after we've either solved our population problem here, or circumstances -- famine, epidemics, war -- solve it for us.

Humans may reach other worlds some day, but moving the existing population is never going to happen.

[Javaman]

6. note that I wrote, "let those who remain on earth die"

the rich will go to mars and let the rest of us die.

natural unselection.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Most of the rich WON'T go to Mars, though

Partly because it isn't suitable for us and partly because we're just barely able to talk about getting a few -- carefully selected and trained -- people there alive.

In practical terms, in the foreseeable future, there will be on B Arks.

[GliderGuider]

5. We have a third choice, the one we have actually made.

That's the choice to do nothing, to continue on our way as though nothing at all is amiss, and let impersonal forces sort it all out. Painful, yes, but at least this way everyone's hands stay clean.

I suspect our population will begin its decline faster than expected - kind of like our running E/E climate change joke. I hope we all enjoy our thoroughly blameless ride into the abyss.