This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

How Would We Provide Enough Energy For 11 Billion People?

Geoffrey Styles's picture
GSW Strategy Group, LLC

Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant and advisor, helping organizations...

  • Member since 2018
  • 2,085 items added with 225,524 views
  • Oct 29, 2014
  • 2666 views

world energy supply and population growth

  • Reconciling energy and environmental concerns was challenging enough when global population seemed headed for a plateau around 9 billion.
  • A new forecast of up to 12 billion people by 2100 raises large questions about the capacity of current energy technologies to meet future global needs.

The combination of forecasted global economic weakness and growing non-OPEC production continues to weigh on oil prices.  Brent crude has fallen below $90 per barrel, and the US benchmark has been flirting with $80. But just when the rapid growth of energy supplies has undermined the mood of energy scarcity that prevailed for the last four decades, a group of demographers has thrown us a curve ball, though admittedly a very long one. 

Your access to Member Features is limited.

In the 1970s many people were concerned about a “population explosion.” Dystopian fiction–already a well-established sub-genre–featured visions of a grossly overcrowded future earth, along the lines of “Soylent Green.” However, something happened on the way to such nightmares: birth rates in developed countries as well as large developing ones like China slowed in tandem with rising incomes. Instead of a world of 12 billion by 2100 or sooner, long-term population estimates in the last decade, including from the United Nations, began to focus on an eventual plateau around 9 billion.

Now it appears those lower forecasts might have been too optimistic, particularly with regard to birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa. The analysis in a paper published in Science last month suggests that growth will continue beyond the end of the current century. The authors expect global population in 2100 to reach 9.6 to 12.3 billion. That could have significant implications for energy demand and climate change, among other environmental and development issues, while in turn being influenced by them.  Nick Butler, who writes on energy for the Financial Times, looked at this from the perspective of oil and other energy sources and concluded, “None of the current technologies…offer an adequate answer.”

I would take Mr. Butler’s observation a step farther.  It’s extremely challenging to say anything confidently concerning how much energy the world of 2100 might need, or where it will come from. Forecasts are rarely accurate beyond a few years, and even scenario methods struggle to cope with the unknown-unknowns involved in such time frames.

Recall that in 1928–as far removed from today as 2100– world oil production was less than 5 million barrels per day, and the first chain reaction making nuclear power possible was still 14 years in the future. Natural gas was mainly viewed as a low-value byproduct of oil production, while wind power was considered quaint. And with a global population of just over 2 billion at the time, meeting the energy needs of today’s 7 billion might have seemed even more daunting than supplying 11 or 12 billion does to us.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that more than three-fourths of today’s oil is consumed by countries with just 60% of the world’s population.  The curve drops off steeply from there, leaving roughly 2 billion without modern energy services. So the energy implications of an extra two billion people by the turn of the century depend heavily on whether their energy demand looks more like today’s top 4 billion or bottom 2 billion energy consumers. The recent “Africa Energy Outlook” from  the International Energy Agency (IEA) examined how energy supply on that continent might develop, along with the necessity of shifting investment from exports to domestic consumption to bridge that gap.

For that matter, even if an expansion of global fossil fuel production on the scale required to meet the needs of billions of additional consumers were possible, due to the technology that is currently unlocking oil and gas from source rock rather than conventional reservoirs–a.k.a. the shale revolution–it would bypass any notions of a “carbon budget” that might constrain the projected global temperature increase to a manageable level. It’s a reasonable bet that however many people are alive in 2100, they will use less fossil fuels per capita than we do.

Consider what some of today’s mainstream forecasts indicate about the future energy mix. The main “New Policies” scenario of the IEA’s 2013 World Energy Outlook sees renewable energy growing from 11% to 18% of total primary energy by 2035, while its more aggressive “450” scenario has these sources supplying 26%, with commensurate reductions in fossil fuels. Shell’s current long-range scenarios envision divergent futures in which fossil fuels still supply 50-60% of nearly doubled energy demand by 2060, but shrink to around 20% or less by 2100.

One big trend that could help facilitate that kind of change is electrification, which will increasingly displace liquid fuels from illumination, cooking, and even transportation. That’s important because while we have few practical large-scale alternatives to petroleum for liquid fuels, we have many ways to generate electricity and could accommodate more, including the long-awaited arrival of practical nuclear fusion–perhaps long the lines announced by Lockheed Martin earlier this month–or some other, currently unanticipated energy source. Eight decades would be more than sufficient for an entirely new generating technology to become significant. 

Reconciling the energy needs of a large, growing population with preventing dangerous global warming–referred to by some as the “energy dilemma”–thus appears to require a sustained, protracted transformation of the entire energy economy. That shouldn’t be a surprising insight. The bigger question is whether such a transformation can be achieved through the gradual evolution of the energy technologies available today, or whether it will require revolutionary developments. That remains a matter of considerable debate in energy circles. 

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

Photo Credit: Energy Supply to Match Population Growth/shutterstock

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Thank Geoffrey for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Oct 29, 2014

Good article with great links. Thanks.

I suppose I would frame the final paragraph in another way.

In my view, the natural historical evolution of our energy system is from biomass, to fossils, and to nuclear power. Within this view, the current action by which many (mostly ‘advanced’) economies are apparantly steering away from this natural technological evolution and are attempting instead to regress artificially back toward biomass, and/or sideways on a tangent toward poorly suited and energy diffuse intermittent renewables is the ‘transformation’ that we are seeing. But this transformation is negative! It is not solving our energy problems. On the contrary, this ‘transformation’ is the problem!

The solution to our energy problems is not that we need some kind of ‘transformation’ at all. The solution is that we abandon this ‘transformation’ toward bioenergyand unreliable energy sources and imposed austerity in the form of ‘energy use reduction’ that is being imposed on populations without being fully thought through.

We need to return to the natural path of technological development which humanity has been on since the Enlightenment. We need to accept that humanity exploits ever denser and cleaner fuels, which are enabled by science and technology, of which nuclear fission fuel is the obvious ultimate endpoint.

We need to abandon attempts at artificial ‘transformations’ which require the permanent and broadly manifested application of force to implement. We need to stop ‘transforming’ human progress. We need rather to embrace natural progress and recognise its track record of amazing success. Humans who are alive today in advanced economies are wealthier than Roman emperor Nero could have imagined in his wildest dreams. This is the result of progress. 

The embrace of technological, scientific and economic development based on the natural force of reason and the understanding and exploitation of physical laws in combination with an increasingly educated and concerned electorate will help solve all humanity’s problems naturally and automatically. This is what is right not only for our common future, our children and the planet, but it is right in the context of the broad agreement between all human cultures and religions of progress, aspiration and stewardship of the earth.

Calls for ‘transformation’ are in my opinion largely the result of a lack of understanding of the state of science and technology and of the historical trajectory of human development toward greater productivity and efficiency. Attempting such ‘transformation’ appears foolhardy at the outset. Calls for ‘transformation’ are in a sense a denial of progress and a denial of the power of the human mind and spirit to improve the human condition and that of his surroundings. It more likely represents the need of some people to change and control other people. Such control is highly unlikely – in my opinion – of leading to better outcomes than would otherwise be achievable.

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Oct 29, 2014

Joris,

“Ever denser and cleaner” is close to my own mantra of “better, faster, cheaper”, although the places where those two phrases fail to overlap illustrate why nuclear hasn’t quite become the universally self-evident champ it might have. I’m also not sure it makes sense from a physics perspective to label fission as the “obvious ultimate endpoint.”

In any case, the intensity of the current debate about which energy sources are best or worst suggests we’re a long way from any source dominating the others. Biomass has serious limitations and envionmental thorns of its own, but it seems at least premature to conclude that renewables like solar power are a tangent to the kind of pathway you see. When since the start of the industrial age have we relied on a single energy source?  

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Oct 29, 2014

For world population to continue growing, several things need to be sustained. The obvious are food and water.

The less obvious is microbiology. The use of antibiotics, fungicides, vaccines, as well as the herbicides, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers has enormous microbiological pressures. Any assumptions we can continue outsmart fast replicating genomes to sustain our slow replicating genome is a leap of faith. Then we can discuss the non-self replicating viruses and strange things like proteons (mad cow disease).

So to see the usual deliberately biologically ignorant commentary declare “nuclear will save us” has nothing to do with most of the problems we will face.

But thanks, Geoff. Your article is well written, well defined, and important.

Jeffrey Miller's picture
Jeffrey Miller on Oct 29, 2014

Good article.

To what degree do you think the main problem we face is not lack of technological know how about how to make a transition to low carbon energy, or the lack of economic resources to pay for this transition, but a lack of any sense of urgency among the public about the need to make this transition? If there is no sense of urgency, is it likely to happen?

I agree with your comments about the benefits of electrifying sectors that are not currently run on electric power like transport, industry, and heating. We know how to quickly, completely, and cost effectively decarbonize the electricity sector (as was done in France over a 15 year period). If we can electrify these sectors, we have a clear way to decarbonize them, which otherwise doesn’t seem easy (biofuels aren’t scalable, especially if we have to feed 12 billion people; we could make carbon neutral synthetic fuels using electricty, but this is still an electric solution).

 

  

 

 

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Oct 29, 2014

Rick,

Thanks for this non-energycentric reality check. The US public seems to agree, at least to the extent of not putting energy close to the top of the most critical issues we face today:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

 

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Oct 29, 2014

Energy may not be the most important issue yet, however, as depletion, acidification and warming sets in, it might be too late. We had the solution decades ago (and I believe that energy is the foundation to all things). The public does not really know or care much about these issues because most do not care to understand basic science, and now, about energy math concerning Eroei, Esoi, CF, inefficiency, and of course, about all the various different wastes emitted and generated for powering the predicted amount of people at high standards.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Oct 29, 2014

 I’m also not sure it makes sense from a physics perspective to label fission as the “obvious ultimate endpoint.”

Well, if we accept the evolution criteria as “toward greater energy density”, then our only choices are fission and fusion, and the impractically large size, mass, pressure, and temperature combined with the feeble burn rate (a billion years per fuel load) of stellar cores would all argue against fusion.

So the question is really can we ignore energy density?  Can we find ways of making low density energy sources cost competitive?  Can/should we make enough land available?  Given the starting point of the article (population growth), no seems like the right answer.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Oct 30, 2014

I consider myself comfortably in the “nuclear will save us” crowd.

If our energy/climate problem is not solved, then none of our other problems can be solved. Therefore, solving the energy problem should be a priority not only for people concerned about energy, but also for those who are concerned about other problems such as food, water, population growth, biodiversity, desertification, pollution, etc.

One could do worse than watch this (slightly dated but still excellent) talk by the late Dr. Richard Smalley about Our Energy Challenge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpYTVMhPUzc

 

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Oct 30, 2014

Not so sure. Molten Salt nuclear can pump out even more energy per unit acreage, and if you consider that a Nuke Power Plant can service the community for up to 80 yrs, the energy density of Nukes go even higher.

To make this statement, you’d also have to ignore Fossil Fuel distribution infrastructure, like Gas stations which more-or-less completely cover the landscape of this country. Also consider Pipelines, maybe even giant Super Tankers and Trucks, also Trains which transport coal also cunsumes land area.

You need to factor these things because they are essential for use of FFs as opposed to electricity.

Jeffrey Miller's picture
Jeffrey Miller on Oct 30, 2014

I agree about the need for cheap, plentiful energy, especially for the poor. 

The fastest typical changes in climate occur at the end of ice ages because the ice melts much more quickly than it forms.  You might see a 5 degree C change over 5000 years, or .1 degree per century. This is 7x slower than what we have seen over the last century, and ~50x slower than what we should expect over the next century with a business as usual scenario. This is very rapid change on a natural scale, far too rapid for many species to adapt. It’s open question how well civilization and agriculture, which evolved in a much cooler climate, will be able to adapt, especially given the demographic pressure that Geoffrey discusses and the myriad other environmental problems that we face, as noted by Rick in the comments. 

So the problem is quite urgent. The difficulty is that society doesn’t seem to care much about what happens beyond a few decades in the future.  This poses real problems, partly because of the large amount of inertia in our energy infrastructure – it decades decades to change things, and partly because of the inertia in the earth’s climate – it will take decades and centuries for the full effects of the greenhouse gases that we have already emitted to be felt. 

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Oct 30, 2014

The most promising way past this initial challenge is in commitment to developing the intrinsically least expensive, most abundant sources. I remember watching that movie, Soylet Green – and thinking that’s what happens without R&D. I didn’t know that Alvin Weinberg and crew had already developed the answer many years before that. With such a dense energy source (protected by hardened silo) we could get on with the more important things like preventing depletion, acidification, warming.

We also must expand R&D necessary to prevent natural depletions which can still be caused by clean energy. For example, it might be necessary to stop growing food the way we do in order for the biosphere to survive. We might have to obtain phosphorus from space and even consume other vast amounts of energy to convert excess CO2 into limestone. For all these, and especially, the unknown reasons, we need to insure the vast sources of energy that we do already have on paper. Wood led to coal which led to oil which led to NG which now leads to vast expansions of solar, wind and, most importantly, advanced nuclear (which wastes must now be managed below the strike zone).

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 30, 2014

Geoffrey, though it’s possible most transportation will eventually be electrified, there are billions of vehicles in service which currently depend on fossil fuels, and a correspondingly extensive refueling infrastructure.

Gasoline and other liquid fuels have been synthesized from atmospheric CO2 and water. Currently, the process is inefficient – but using thorium-cycle nuclear generation to provide the power would render efficiency nearly irrelevant. The potential energy contained within available thorium could accomodate all of our needs for many thousands of years.

We don’t need to think exclusively in terms of decarbonizing our energy supply when “defossilizing” could make gasoline-powered transporation carbon neutral. It would permit more rapid reductions in CO2 emissions than making electric transporation affordable for everyone, or practical for applications like rail freight and container shipping.

Hops Gegangen's picture
Hops Gegangen on Oct 30, 2014

 

Maybe the first problem we need to solve is aging. That’s what’s going to kill us all before the climate falls apart. 

 

 

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Oct 30, 2014

There is an urgency concerning the consequenses. Which of the three are of highest priority – warming, acidification or just plain ole depletion? It’s definetly a matter of resources, and timing. 

There’s really no technical need to burn coal anymore because we (were supposed to have) moved on to the next tech step. However, it’s nice to have coal for synthesizing material for non combustional needs.

Roy Wagner's picture
Roy Wagner on Oct 30, 2014

Population growth and providing energy to those who have none or very little is indeed a matter of concern.

Most of this growth will not be in the developed Nations but in the developing,Nations.

Realistically how many of these countries do you see either developing their own or being supplied with nuclear technology of any kind.

So why not supply or let them manufacture what is available Solar Wind Geothermal Ocean etc etc and by doing so relieve the pressure on burning the remaining fossil fuel resources which can be used for many other useful and non GHG producing purposes.

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Oct 31, 2014

Bob,

This could work in theory and on an 80 year time horizon it might even be doable. What I’ve never been able to grasp is the rationale for how such a transition would happen, specifically who would put up the large sums of money–and who provide the permits–for a commercially-unproven nuclear technology and an expensive, undemonstrated-at-scale CO2-to-gasoline or diesel plant, together. It seems very much like the dynamic for building a grassroots coal power plant with integrated CCS, but with even more technology and project risk. (Investors hate that stuff.) What am I missing? It’s also a bit like dedicated PV/EV, yoking two new, expensive technologies together only raises the hurdles they must overcome.

That’s why I suspect that if these technologies do come into the market, they will at least initially do so independently: new-tech nukes supplying electricity to a grid that will still need stable, centralized power, and CO2-to-fuel as one of many processes for manufacturing synthetic fuels in competition with GTL, CTL, H2, and conventional/unconventional hydrocarbons.  

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 31, 2014

Geoffrey, ironing out the hurdles faced by LFTR technology, which are by most assessments tractable ones, would be the first priority. If it is as practical as many expect, it would have the added benefit of  permitting us to decarbonize electricity, at least in developed countries, while fuel synthesis is in R&D.

But in response to “What am I missing?” – if you are expecting the free market to take the reins on an issue like this, an 80-year timeline is optimistic. It would likely never happen. Yet somehow in seven short years, between the discovery of fission and Hiroshima, we were able to build an atomic bomb by undertaking the most massive public investment in time and resources in history. Although fear was the incentive that permitted Roosevelt to embark upon this massive undertaking, somehow I can’t resign myself to the idea humankind requires an immediate, personal danger to act upon one which ultimately threatens the future of its species.

So give up talk of “investors”, “coming to market”, “in competition”, etc. The free market is a catastrophic failure at any pursuit with the timeline required to address global warming. The most important and elusive ingredient has nothing to do with technology – it will be the inspired leadership necessary to put society on track to saving itself.

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Oct 31, 2014

Is OTEC easier than deploying uranium based molten salt reactors? Can we use OTEC energy to make liquid fuels from air and water? There is no reason not to use the MSR to provide all the power for tens of billions of people living at very high standards, other than that spiritual reasons might not want such billions of non caring people to enjoy such luxury. Thankfully, all of you do care!

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Oct 31, 2014

I must plead irreconcilable differences. Messianic hopes and government action just don’t go together in my book, at least for the current generation of leadership. Examples abound.

I also believe you’re selling the market short. Solving the climate challenge requires technology that is truly better/cleaner/cheaper, and once developed the market has demonstrated its capacity to distribute it faster than any top-down system. I can’t help seeing irony in your willingness to depend on government policy to promote advanced nuclear, since at least in the US, government (in its three branches) has mainly been an impediment to nuclear construction post-TMI.

Roy Wagner's picture
Roy Wagner on Oct 31, 2014

Why cant we do both?

They are both thermal based power sources offering a close to unlimited energy supply.

CO2 is available from ocean waters and unlike Nuclear thermal OTEC does not consume valuable freshwater and in fact can produce it in huge volumes.

An equivilant capacity sized OTEC plant can be built in half the time and probably at a much lower cost.

The ocean thermal system is constatly refueld by the sun and no radioactive disposal issues.

Land footprint can be as small as the power cable running to the grid connection and freshwater pipes.

Lockheed Martin are currently building such a project in collaboration with the Chinese Government.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 31, 2014

Geoffrey, it was the free market that created the Great Depression, and opposed New Deal programs that helped pull us out of it. Making those programs a reality then defeating Hitler didn’t require a Messiah, just someone willing to fight for the greater good. Unless radioactivity from atomic testing has rid our gene pool of courage and vision, the requisite leadership is out there. Somewhere.

The profit motive will never finance effective carbon abatement, for the simple reason there’s no money in it. There is money in a misplaced perception of effective carbon abatement – windmills and solar panels – which are largely making matters worse, while permitting fossil fuel producers to maintain status quo. Which brings me to the real question: has the government been an impediment to nuclear construction post-TMI, or has fossil fuel influence in government been the impediment? Rod Adams has a rather convincing answer to that question – again, with the unrestricted free market exacerbating a public problem instead of solving it.

Jeffrey Miller's picture
Jeffrey Miller on Oct 31, 2014

Markets can be effective at solving problems when all costs are internalized; carbon emission costs are estimated to be large but they are not internalized at all; absent effective and significant worldwide carbon taxes or trading schemes with carbon prices reflecting the true long term social cost of carbon, markets have no incentive seek out and implement low carbon solutions. With no incentive, why should we expect markets to do anything about carbon emissions?

 

Jeffrey Miller's picture
Jeffrey Miller on Oct 31, 2014

I think we are saying the same thing. My point is that in the absence of a tax or some other non-market based mechanism to account for the external (to the market) but real cost of pollution, markets have no incentive to reduce pollution.  Currently we have no carbon tax (or fee + dividend or whatever) and unfortunately I don’t see one on the horizon at the moment, so markets are not going to do anything to try to reduce carbon emissions. They will go with whatever is lowest internalized cost. Today this looks like it will be gas. Speaking of which, there was a good paper on Nature this week. The authors looked at five integrated assessment models under the scenario of abundant gas -basically if fracking takes off world wide. They find that gas is not a bridge to a low carbon future as many have hoped because while it does displace coal, it also displaces low carbon energy like nuclear and renewables. Further because gas will be so cheap (in the world wide fracking scenario), people will use more energy, driving up emissions. Their bottom line was that under the abdundent gas scenario, emissions were essentially the same as the buissness as usual scenario.   

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Oct 31, 2014

Affordable OTEC systems are in the same category as affordable energy storage:  it doesn’t violate any laws of physics, so it might happen some day, but we don’t have the technology today.  

Therefore, this is technology that we should pursue in parallel with (rather than instead of) nuclear fission, which has a proven track record of being safer and cleaner than fossil fuel, and affordable (despite what the fossil fuel industry would have us believe).

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Nov 1, 2014

What says that nuclear = biological ignorant? It has everything to do with the problems we face – unless we can develop another source powerful and quickly enough to save us (everything) from the biological ruins caused by warming and acidification.

I can only see a trivial concern such that nuclear and biological sciences can’t go hand in hand, and that is improper wastes handling and reactor design. Mastery of fission requires the willingness to learn about what Alvin Weinberg developed and to improve on that – the MSR. He said that it is safer than military type reactors (for obvious reasons).

Bty, the only other source that Alvin considered as a solution to excess CO2 was solar. He must have imagined “if only it and its ~80% storage could be made cheap enough”. Back in the good ole days of invention, people weren’t haters of one or the other. If solar could be made cheap in the future, so would be its storage.

We will need the power of millions of sq km of solar (and or nuclear) to deal with even our most basic global challenges much less that of acidification and warming. An energy poor world = worse than biologically ignorant.

Roy Wagner's picture
Roy Wagner on Nov 1, 2014

We do have the technology today it’s based on the same rankine or kalina cyles used by all thermal power plants. Several new designs I have read about offer greater efficiency.

Heat exchanger technology has also advanced quite considerably since the original plants where built.

OTEC deals with many of the issues involved in the water energy nexus also the future demands for freshwater supplies can be met by this technology.

We do not only have to supply energy to 11 Billion people but water and food too.

Ocean based energy systems use less land and can also support aquaculture. 

 

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Nov 1, 2014

Totally agree, Thanks!

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Nov 1, 2014

The one that requires mountaintop removal and other mining on ever increasing levels, which wastes is also order of magnitudes harder to contain is the one that’s about a million times more diffuse than the other.

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Nov 3, 2014

The only large economy with a price on carbon is the EU, but it’s not so clear that emissions trading, which I have supported for longer than I’ve been blogging, is a major reason for Europe’s emissions reductions, after factoring out economic and demographic problems and the effects of other regulations.

And by the way, the free market may have led to the 1929 stock market crash, but that did not cause the Great Depression. As I understand it, that was mainly due to the Fed’s bungled management of the money supply, which turned a major recession into something much worse.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 3, 2014

Geoffrey, regarding the causes of the Great Depression it’s my turn to plead irreconcilable differences, but the subject is not that relevant to energy anyway.

I would agree that emissions trading has been ineffective in the EU, but posit that trying to create a false market for something which has no intrinsic value is to blame – and it’s yet another example of the failure of personal profit to address a public problem. Of course, “a price on carbon” and “emissions trading” are not synonymous, and it seems that British Columbia’s price – a revenue-neutral carbon tax – may reduce emissions while avoiding economic problems altogether.

Roy Wagner's picture
Roy Wagner on Nov 3, 2014

Geoffrey you may want to also consider the growing movement for divestment of fossil fuel investments from institutional investors and others worried about stranded assets. ” Money talks “as they say

 

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Nov 3, 2014

It’s a trend worth watching, as a subset of the larger and more mainstream socially responsible investing trend. As you might expect I find it counterproductive. “Divest” begs multiple questions and so far has many more institutions that have chosen not to join this movement than have signed up.

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Nov 3, 2014

Jim,

I’m really going to have to take a hard look at OTEC one of these days, now that it’s attracting larger players. Thanks for the reminder.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »