In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Energize Europe is urgent, and it needs to start by exposing Europe's pathetic indigenous energy generation potential. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Heat can be converted into electricity and conversely. Electricity can be used to produce synthetic fuels. Fuels can be used to produce heat and electricity, as well as operating moving machines [the latter doesn't really include nuclear].
Solar heating, solar photovoltaic and agriculture/forestry compete for land use [among themselves and with food production] and depend on latitude and weather [the number of hours of sunlight].
In the case of nuclear, with breeding/reprocessing one might not need to import any new fuel for decades.
And so on.
You can call it "resources" or "generation capacity" or something else.
If it can be argued persuasively that we're going to have to import massive quantities of oil from Saudi, gas from Russia/Algeria, coal from Russia/US/China, uranium from Australia/Canada or ethanol from Brazil, then the "energy security" argument becomes a very serious argument for demand reduction as the EU energy policy. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Energy experts predict that total global consumption of primary energy--energy used for space heating, transportation, and generating electricity--will double or triple over the next 50 years, from about 400 exajoules (EJ) per year in 1998 to 800--1,200 EJ per year in 2050. (An exajoule is a billion billion joules. One exajoule is about equal to the energy content of 30 million tons of coal, or the gasoline consumed by a million automobiles during their lifetimes, or the annual energy consumption of West Virginia or Portugal.) Fossil fuel consumption would have to be limited to about 300 EJ per year in 2050 to permit stabilization of anthropogenic greenhouse gases at an equivalent doubling. Carbon-free energy sources would then have to supply the difference: 500--900 EJ per year. That's daunting. In 1998, carbon-free sources supplied less than 60 EJ. Carbon-free energy would need to grow tenfold over the next 50 years--from 15 percent of the total commercial supply to 60--75 percent in 2050.
(An exajoule is a billion billion joules. One exajoule is about equal to the energy content of 30 million tons of coal, or the gasoline consumed by a million automobiles during their lifetimes, or the annual energy consumption of West Virginia or Portugal.)
Fossil fuel consumption would have to be limited to about 300 EJ per year in 2050 to permit stabilization of anthropogenic greenhouse gases at an equivalent doubling. Carbon-free energy sources would then have to supply the difference: 500--900 EJ per year.
That's daunting. In 1998, carbon-free sources supplied less than 60 EJ. Carbon-free energy would need to grow tenfold over the next 50 years--from 15 percent of the total commercial supply to 60--75 percent in 2050.
Am I the only one who has this problem? Nothing against the content of the graphs themselves, but so right now I have a huge white empty column on the left (due to our new micro-center column for comments) and the graph above overlaying all the blogads etc on the right hand margin as well as screwing up the formatting above it. Some kind of awful design nightmare. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
