| Summary: | Peak energy is the notion that the world’s total production of usable energy will reach a maximum value and then begin an inexorable decline. Ninety-two percent of the world’s energy is currently derived from the non-renewable sources (oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear). As each of these non-renewable sources individually peaks in production, we can see total energy production peak. The human population is tightly correlated with global energy production, as agriculture and material possessions are energy intensive. It follows that peak energy should have a significant effect on world population. Using a set of mathematical models, including M King Hubbert’s oil peak mathematics, we prepared three models. The first approached the peak energy and population problem from the point of view of a “black-box” homogeneous world. The second model divides the world into ten major regions to study the global heterogeneity of the peak energy and population question. Both of these models include various scenarios for how the world population will develop based on available energy and per capita consumption of that energy. The third model examines energy and climate change within the forty-eight contiguous American states in order to identify some of the “best” and some of the “worst” states in which to live in the year 2050.
The black box model indicates that peak energy will occur in 2026 at a maximum production of 104.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE). Total energy production in 2011 was 92.78 BBOE. Three scenarios of different energy consumption rates suggest a peak world population occurring between 2026 and 2036, at 7.6-8.3 billion. The regional model indicates that even as each region protects its own energy resources, most of the world will reach peak energy by 2030, and world populations peak between 7.5 and 9 billion. A certain robustness in our conclusion is warranted as similar numbers were obtained via two separate approaches. The third model used several different parameters in order to ascertain that, in general, states that are projected to slow towards flat-line population growth and to become milder due to climate change such as Rhode Island, New York and Ohio are far more suitable with regard to an energy limited world than states that are projected to grow in population as well as become less mild due to climate change such as Texas, Arizona and Nevada.
Each of these models in its own way foreshadows necessary changes that the world will experience as the 21st century progresses. The economies of the world have been, and continue to be, built on energy. When energy production is unable to continue growing it must follow that economies will be unable to grow. As the world approaches and passes peak energy, the standard of living in the less developed areas of the world cannot improve without sacrifices being made in the developed world.
|
|---|
