Megachange : the world in 2050

[mistermack]

Just the one response here.
I note that there is, today, a whole range of electric cars entering the market. The cost of running an electric car, in terms of 'fuel' (electricity for recharge) is very much less than petroleum products. New technologies, due to be introduced way before 2050, should permit great range and rapid recharge of such cars.

So, do you not think, MM, that this factor would alter your above prediction?

I don't think so. The comparitive costs for electric vehicles are skewed at the moment.
Certainly in the UK.
The price of petrol and diesel is nearly all tax. Electricity is virtually tax-free in comparison.
And yet electric vehicles are still not economic. Only very slow, short distance, stop-start applications make sense. And if you put the same tax on electric, as on fossil, nobody would ever buy an electric vehicle.
And it's true that they have improved performance, but at a big price.
And petrol engines have also improved, and they've got relatively cheaper.

In the end, you have to generate the power. Either at a power station, or in the car's engine.
And the price of fossil fuels affects both fairly equally so I can't see why the balance should change.

[macdoc]

Raw materials follows the low hanging fruit model

except the "model" does not reflect reality.....all the metrics are fucked and you are not accounting for emerging markets nor the underlying lack of competition at the refinery and pump end.....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... inglepage/

[Tyrannical]

Raw materials follows the low hanging fruit model

except the "model" does not reflect reality.....all the metrics are fucked and you are not accounting for emerging markets nor the underlying lack of competition at the refinery and pump end.....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... inglepage/

Of course it does, and your article did nothing to refute that. I said raw materials, mines have to be dug deeper or in more inhospitable locations, or more intensive refinery techniques are required such as extracting oil from shale.

[Blind groper]

I am an optimist in relation to the future of humanity.

We have seen numerous predictions of disaster.

Rachel Carson in 1963, in her book "Silent Spring" predicted widespread ecological disaster due to pesticide pollution, and poisoning of the entire natural environment. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make low toxicity and biodegradable pesticides.

Dr. Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book "The Population Bomb" predicted population growth to the point where people could not be fed and a billion plus deaths from starvation,. especially in India and Pakistan from starvation. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make crops that produced more food per acre.

The Club of Rome, in their 1973 book "Limits to Growth" predicted resource limitations such that the world would be out of oil by the year 2000. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and found lots of new sources.

Nuclear warfare, Nuclear winter, Y2K, Ozone depletion etc etc.

There are always new disasters which will destroy the world. There are always people who will gloss over the failure to destroy the world this time and say it will happen next year.

Note the following.
1. Humans are smart!!
2. We learn.
3. When one disaster looms, we react to prevent it.
4. When a resource becomes limited, we find more of it or find an alternative that will do the same job.
5. Above and beyond all the above, humans are on a massively steep learning curve. We are learning more about the world and the universe every day, and each new piece of knowledge empowers us and allows us to do more and more. Producing the things the human species needs are becoming easier and easier, and cheaper and cheaper, and we make more and more, and discover new things to make all the time.

There is an old saying : every day in every way I am getting better and better.
This applies to the whole human species.

[Atheist-Lite]

Not dead yet but for humans it is more a matter of time than anything else before one of those dumb hubristic schemes closes the curtains on the show for good.

[Tyrannical]

Dr. Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book "The Population Bomb" predicted population growth to the point where people could not be fed and a billion plus deaths from starvation,. especially in India and Pakistan from starvation. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make crops that produced more food per acre.

Maybe it just hasn't happened yet because better farming practices has delayed it. But we won't be able to increase yield per acre indefinitely through better practices, and we may have already be near that limit.
Famines occur during crop failures, and we haven't had any world wide bad harvests lately. A once in a century world crop failure due to odd weather is all it would take.

[Atheist-Lite]

Dr. Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book "The Population Bomb" predicted population growth to the point where people could not be fed and a billion plus deaths from starvation,. especially in India and Pakistan from starvation. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make crops that produced more food per acre.

Maybe it just hasn't happened yet because better farming practices has delayed it. But we won't be able to increase yield per acre indefinitely through better practices, and we may have already be near that limit.
Famines occur during crop failures, and we haven't had any world wide bad harvests lately. A once in a century world crop failure due to odd weather is all it would take.

Try to tell these optimists how thin the ice they're standing on is and they'll start jumping up and down to prove you wrong.

[Tyrannical]

Of course if we can invent a cheap cold fusion device, we could produce virtually limitless food through hydroponics. But when much of the world doesn't even have the infrastructure to support irrigation, high-tech farming may be out of the question.

[mistermack]

Of course if we can invent a cheap cold fusion device, we could produce virtually limitless food through hydroponics. But when much of the world doesn't even have the infrastructure to support irrigation, high-tech farming may be out of the question.

Hot fusion's got a lot more chance. But even that is looking slim, just at this moment.
Certainly by 2050, it's not likely to make a breakthrough.

But if it did, you could produce loads more food in lots of ways, not just hydroponics.
You could put huge desalination plants near deserts, and irrigate vast stretches of land.
The whole of Australia could be intensively farmed, for example.
And then the Sahara, and huge areas of other countries that are marginal could be farmed.

Because with cheap electricity would come cheap pumping, moving the desalinated water to where you want it.

Shame it's not happening any time soon.

[Tyrannical]

Hot fusion wouldn't do it, way too large a capital expense and infrastructure to keep it running. Eventually one of those crazy scientists might turn out to be something other than a fraud and really invent a cold fusion box.

[mistermack]

Hot fusion wouldn't do it, way too large a capital expense and infrastructure to keep it running. Eventually one of those crazy scientists might turn out to be something other than a fraud and really invent a cold fusion box.

Yeh but that's now. If hot fusion could be maintained, there would be plenty of money for the infrastructure. And then costs come down, as materials improve.
There are good reasons in physics why cold fusion shouldn't work. That's why there's no sign of it in the universe, But there's plenty of hot fusion.
In fact you can't see much else.

[Blind groper]

Hot fusion's got a lot more chance. But even that is looking slim, just at this moment.

Actually, fission nuclear power using Thorium as fuel is a much better prospect in the medium term. Both China and India see the potential and have operating Thorium reactors already, while they develop the technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Co ... er_station
I quote :

"India's Kakrapar-1 reactor is the world's first reactor which uses thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core.[35] India, which has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves, is developing a 300 MW prototype of a thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). The prototype is expected to be fully operational by 2013, after which five more reactors will be constructed.[36][37] Considered to be a global leader in thorium-based fuel, India's new thorium reactor is a fast-breeder reactor and uses a plutonium core rather than an accelerator to produce neutrons. As accelerator-based systems can operate at sub-criticality they could be developed too, but that would require more research.[38] India currently envisages meeting 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2050."

Thorium is much more abundant than uranium. It is cheaper. It is safer - almost zero chance of Chernobyl style accidents. it produces less nuclear waste. It cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. The only real downside is limited development of the technology - which India is rapidly overcoming.

[JimC]

Hot fusion's got a lot more chance. But even that is looking slim, just at this moment.

Actually, fission nuclear power using Thorium as fuel is a much better prospect in the medium term. Both China and India see the potential and have operating Thorium reactors already, while they develop the technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Co ... er_station
I quote :

"India's Kakrapar-1 reactor is the world's first reactor which uses thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core.[35] India, which has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves, is developing a 300 MW prototype of a thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). The prototype is expected to be fully operational by 2013, after which five more reactors will be constructed.[36][37] Considered to be a global leader in thorium-based fuel, India's new thorium reactor is a fast-breeder reactor and uses a plutonium core rather than an accelerator to produce neutrons. As accelerator-based systems can operate at sub-criticality they could be developed too, but that would require more research.[38] India currently envisages meeting 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2050."

Thorium is much more abundant than uranium. It is cheaper. It is safer - almost zero chance of Chernobyl style accidents. it produces less nuclear waste. It cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. The only real downside is limited development of the technology - which India is rapidly overcoming.

Interesting, Blind G...

I teach a unit on Nuclear Energy to my Yr 11 Physics lads... Next year, I must add a component on Thorium reactors...

[Hermit]

I am an optimist in relation to the future of humanity.

We have seen numerous predictions of disaster.

Rachel Carson in 1963, in her book "Silent Spring" predicted widespread ecological disaster due to pesticide pollution, and poisoning of the entire natural environment. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make low toxicity and biodegradable pesticides.

Dr. Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book "The Population Bomb" predicted population growth to the point where people could not be fed and a billion plus deaths from starvation,. especially in India and Pakistan from starvation. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make crops that produced more food per acre.

The Club of Rome, in their 1973 book "Limits to Growth" predicted resource limitations such that the world would be out of oil by the year 2000. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and found lots of new sources.

Nuclear warfare, Nuclear winter, Y2K, Ozone depletion etc etc.

There are always new disasters which will destroy the world. There are always people who will gloss over the failure to destroy the world this time and say it will happen next year.

Note the following.
1. Humans are smart!!
2. We learn.
3. When one disaster looms, we react to prevent it.
4. When a resource becomes limited, we find more of it or find an alternative that will do the same job.
5. Above and beyond all the above, humans are on a massively steep learning curve. We are learning more about the world and the universe every day, and each new piece of knowledge empowers us and allows us to do more and more. Producing the things the human species needs are becoming easier and easier, and cheaper and cheaper, and we make more and more, and discover new things to make all the time.

There is an old saying : every day in every way I am getting better and better.
This applies to the whole human species.

And what about The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894? That's my second-most favourite predictions of disasters that never happened.

Yes, predictions are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean dangers with catastrophic consequences do not exist, nor that human ingenuity will inevitably get us out of the mess. Entire societies were wiped out by environmental disasters that were caused by the actions of those societies themselves. The Easter Islanders, Pueblo Indians and the Mayas come to mind , to pick a few example that come readily to mind.

On a larger scale I don't know what human ingenuity will save us from the sun turning supernova, the collision of our galaxy with Andromeda, or the eventual last whimper of the entire universe due to entropy.

[Blind groper]

Seraph

To tackle a few of your disasters.
I have not studied the Mayas and the Pueblo. But I know what happened to the Rapa Nui - Easter island. They had a thriving community till they were faced with Europeans. Result - smallpox and slavery. All their most vigorous people taken off to central America to slave in sugar plantations. Many of those remaining died of smallpox. Jared diamond was dishonest in his book. The Rapa Nui did not die off due to ecological disaster. We already knew their fate, and it was caused by white skinned invaders. The remnants still live on Easter Island, and their numbers are growing.

Sun turning supernova? Not for 5 billion years. By that time, if humanity is not scattered among the myriad stars of our galaxy, we are not the people I believe we are. Andromeda collision? Calculations show that most stars are relatively unaffected. Two galaxies are, after all, mostly empty space. Last whimper of the universe? We don't actually know how or when that will happen, so it is premature to speculate.

Study a bit more. There are much more credible disasters to speculate about.