What I would then ask next are questions like the following: At what rate do we currently use energy associated with food production (the most basic of human needs) -- this includes farm equipment, pesticides, fertilizer (in the form of stored energy put back into the depleted soil), and distribution? How much land area do we need to seed with photovoltaic cells, hydrogen-producing yeast tanks, switchgrass for biodiesel, or whatever in order to make available this amount of energy, assuming 10% efficiency in converting from sunlight to an end-usable form?
Assume now that we cut synthetic pesticides and fertilizers 100% (i.e., farm organically), and distribute all food no farther than 50 miles from where it was produced (the closer the better). Now how much energy do we use? How much food can we produce this way, assuming a decent balance between land used to grow food and land used to produce end-usable energy? How many people can we sustain, assuming a 2,000 cal/day/person diet?
If the answer is "not as many as we have in our country", then we have a problem. If we get lucky and can sustain more, then we might ask how much industry uses, and how much technology we can sustain with the remaining land area.
One other thought on biotech/nanotech: Not too long ago they started studying the genomes of diatoms (ocean critters that suck up lots of carbon). I am terrified that they will start trying to genetically engineer these things, trying to change the carbon cycle balance in the ocean. While it doesn't relate directly to energy production, it is certainly related to the use of fossil fuels and global climate change. Messing with the oceans will have far-reaching consequences. It could be a brilliant solution to our problems, or it could result in the rapid extinction of all life on earth. I've just downloaded a recent report from LBNL on carbon cycles which looks like it will be very interesting reading.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
brief postscript
Date: 5 September 2005 02:29 (UTC)Assume now that we cut synthetic pesticides and fertilizers 100% (i.e., farm organically), and distribute all food no farther than 50 miles from where it was produced (the closer the better). Now how much energy do we use? How much food can we produce this way, assuming a decent balance between land used to grow food and land used to produce end-usable energy? How many people can we sustain, assuming a 2,000 cal/day/person diet?
If the answer is "not as many as we have in our country", then we have a problem. If we get lucky and can sustain more, then we might ask how much industry uses, and how much technology we can sustain with the remaining land area.
One other thought on biotech/nanotech: Not too long ago they started studying the genomes of diatoms (ocean critters that suck up lots of carbon). I am terrified that they will start trying to genetically engineer these things, trying to change the carbon cycle balance in the ocean. While it doesn't relate directly to energy production, it is certainly related to the use of fossil fuels and global climate change. Messing with the oceans will have far-reaching consequences. It could be a brilliant solution to our problems, or it could result in the rapid extinction of all life on earth. I've just downloaded a recent report from LBNL on carbon cycles which looks like it will be very interesting reading.