Population and energy consumption by country,positive for herpes simplex virus type1 error,treatment of throat herpes hurt - .

admin 09.09.2013

We know that there is a close connection between energy use (and in fact oil use) and economic growth in recent years.
Thus, if we want to keep the economy functioning, we need an ever-rising supply of cheap energy products of the appropriate types for our built infrastructure. 1000 to 1500 – Early use of peat moss for heat energy for industrialization, particularly in Netherlands, leading to increased trade.
1500 to 1820 – European empire expansion to the New World and to colonies in Africa, allowing world population to grow. 1940 to 1970 – Post war rebuilding of Europe and Japan and US baby boom led to hugely expanded use of fossil fuels.
1970 to 2000 – 1970 was the beginning of the great “oops,” when US oil production started to decline, and oil prices spiked.
2000 to 2014 – Another big “oops,” as oil prices spiked upward, when North Sea and Mexican oil began to decline. Growth in GDP in Figure 2 generally follows the pattern we would expect, if fossil fuels and earlier predecessor fuels raised GDP and the great “oopses” during the 1970-2000 and 2000-2014 periods reduced economic growth. GDP growth is composed of two different types of growth: (1) population growth and (2) rise in the standard of living (or per capita GDP growth).
If we compare the population growth pattern in Figure 3 with the total GDP growth pattern shown in Figure 2, we notice some differences.
If we look at world per capita GDP growth by time-period (Figure 4), we see practically no growth until the time of fossil fuels–in other words, 1820 and succeeding periods. I earlier showed how world per capita energy consumption has grown since 1820, based on the work of Vaclav Smil (Figure 5). While this increase in population holds for the world in total, analyzing population growth by country or country grouping yields very erratic results.
Part of what happens is that economic collapses (or famines or epidemics) set population back by very significant amounts in local areas. Per capita GDP for Italy dropped by half over this period, from about double that of most other countries to about equivalent to that of other countries.
If we look at the trend in population shown on Figure 7, we see that the semi-arid, temperate areas seemed to predominate in population in the Year 1. Each part of the world has its own challenges, from Africa’s problems with tropical diseases to the Middle East’s challenges with water.
One point that many people miss is that Japan’s low growth in GDP in recent years is to a significant extent the result of low population growth. As noted above, the big increase in per capita energy use shown in Figure 5 came in the 1940 to 1970 period. Growth in oil production “hit a wall” in 1970, when US oil production unexpectedly stopped growing and started declining.
Oil prices were brought down, but not to the $20 per barrel level that had been available prior to 1970. In the 2007-2008 period, oil prices spiked again, leading to a major recession, especially among the countries that used very much oil in their energy mix. The high oil prices–around $100 per barrel–continued until United States QE was tapered down and stopped in 2014. If a person looks back at Figure 9, it is clear that high oil prices brought oil consumption down in the early 1980s, and again for a very brief period in late 2008-early 2009.
The low prices we are now encountering are a message from our networked economy, saying, “No, the economy cannot really afford oil at this high a price level. There have been recent reports that the factory portion of the Chinese economy may now be contracting. Gail TverbergGail Tverberg is a casualty actuary whose prior work involved forecasting and modeling in the insurance industry. The wealth is not of the type that it puts food on the table for people, or magically transports them to work. Much like old world astronomers determined the Earth orbited the Sun at their peril, solar photo-chemistry of protons might offer some good physics. We talk about the possibility of reducing fossil fuel use by 80% by 2050 and ramping up renewables at the same time, to help prevent climate change. Back in March, I showed you this graph in my post, World Energy Consumption since 1820 in Charts.
We can use actual historical population amounts plus the UN’s forecast of population growth to 2050 to convert these amounts to per capita energy equivalents, shown in Figure 3, below.
In Figure 3, we see that per capita energy use has historically risen, or at least not declined. With the assumptions chosen, the world per capita energy consumption in 2050 is about equal to the world per capita energy consumption in 1905. I applied regression analysis to create what I would consider a best-case estimate of future GDP if a decrease in energy supply of the magnitude shown were to take place. World economic growth would average a negative 0.59% per year between now and 2050, meaning that the world would be more or less in perpetual recession between now and 2050.
I personally think a voluntary worldwide reduction in fossil fuels is very unlikely, partly because voluntary changes of this sort are virtually impossible to achieve, and partly because I think we are headed toward a near-term financial crash, which is largely the result of high oil prices causing recession in oil importers (like the PIIGS).
Historical estimates of energy consumption, population, and GDP are available for many years.
We can see from Figure 4 that energy growth and GDP growth seem to move in the same direction at the same time.
Energy in some form is needed if movement is to take place, or if substances are to be heated.
I used the regression equation in Figure 5 to compute how much yearly economic growth can be expected between 2010 and 2050, if energy consumption drops by 50%. The issue of whether we can really continue transitioning to a service economy when much less fuel in total is available is also debatable. The time periods in the Figure 5 regression analysis are of different lengths, with the early periods much longer than the later ones.
Population growth doesn’t look to be very great in Figure 4, since it shows annual averages, but we can see from Figure 7 (below) what a huge difference it really makes. Since we have historical data, it is possible to calculate an estimate based on regression analysis of the expected population change between 2010 and 2050. One of the issues in forecasting population using regression analysis is that in the period since 1820, we don’t have any examples of negative energy growth for long enough periods that they actually appear in the averages used in this analysis.
While I did not use Energy per Capita in this forecast, we can look at historical growth rates in Energy per Capita, compared to growth rates in total energy consumed by society.
Figure 10 shows the corresponding regression analysis, with the highest correlation we have seen, an r squared equal to .87.
The renewable energy that is not fossil fuel dependent (mostly wood and other biomass that can be burned), is in danger of being used at faster than a sustainable rate, if fossil fuels are not available. We can talk about rationing fuel, but in practice, rationing is extremely difficult, once the amount of fuel becomes very low. Angus Maddison, in the same data set that I used back to 1820, also gives an estimate of population and GDP back to 1 AD. Figure 11 shows that the use of fossil fuels since 1820 has allowed GDP to rise faster than population, for pretty much the first time. If we compare the later time periods to the earlier ones, Figure 11 shows a pattern of increasing growth rates for both population and GDP.
Looking back, the question seems to become: How many people can the world support, at what standard of living, with a given quantity of fuel? The opinions of the contributors to Financial Sense® do not necessarily reflect those of Financial Sense, its staff, or its parent company, PFS Group.
The 2014 BP Statistical Review of World Energy was published yesterday updating global energy statistics to the end of 2013. Oil consumption has been on a gently rising plateau since 2005 (Figure 1) and oil is declining in importance in the global energy mix (Figure 2). This entry was posted in Energy, Political commentary and tagged bp, CO2, coal, energy policy, failure, gas, global energy, new renewables, nuclear, oil.
I was looking at UK natural gas production data in the 2014 BP Statistical Review and it seemed a bit odd to me. A reader over at Ron’s Peak Oil Barrel site pointed out that the data is shifted by 3 years.
I would think that the UK government has statistics on Natural Gas production, could these be compared with the BP numbers? The statistics above are gross production for natural Gas Production from the UK government Agency, the report is DUKES Table 4.3.
The numbers are fairly close to the 2013 Statistical Review, hopefully BP will correct the error in the 2014 report. At link above is a chart from energy trends table 4.2 (UK govt report) for gross and net natural gas production from 2000 to 2013. It would, however, need a backup power source to keep it operating on cold winter nights when the wind isn’t blowing and the lights have gone out. The best estimate of global CO2 emissions and their sources are put together by the Global Carbon Project led by Corrine Le Quere at East Anglia. Euan, many thanks for the excellent charts and clear analysis on this site, very helpful to understanding and communication.
Regarding the anomalies in BP’s data, the Malaysian figures have also been undergoing major revisions every year for at least the last six, sometimes dramatically changing the message they convey.
Life on Earth began and survived millions of years because of favorable climate conditions. World energy consumption between year 1850 and 2000 compared to world population increase in same period. Renewable energy sources do not pollute environment in the same amount as non-renewable do, but they are also not completely clean. Biomass is a form of renewable energy that derives from living, or recently living organisms.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible.


Comparison of three-year average growth in world real GDP (based on USDA values in 2005$), oil supply and energy supply. We will also see that economies that can leverage their human energy with inexpensive supplemental energy gain an advantage over other economies.
With cheap fuels, it is possible to leverage the expensive energy that humans can create from eating foods (examples: ability to dig ditches, do math problems), so as to produce more goods and services with the same number of workers.
The problem we are encountering now is that this isn’t happening–more energy supply may be available, but it is expensive-to-produce supply. The British Economist Angus Maddison made GDP and population estimates for a number of dates between 1 C.
E., it appears that the annual growth rate in inflation-adjusted GDP peaked in the 1940 to 1970 period, and has been falling ever since. This set off a major push toward efficiency (smaller cars, better mileage) and shifts to other fuels, including nuclear. Average annual increase in world population, based on work of Angus Maddison through 2000; USDA population figures used for 2000 to 2014. Doing so seems to have allowed greater population and more building of cities, but it didn’t raise the standard of living of most of the population by very much. World Energy Consumption by Source, Based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects together with BP Statistical Data for 1965 and subsequent divided by population estimates by Angus Maddison. Share of world population from Year 1 to 2014, based primarily on estimates of Angus Maddison. For example, Maddison shows the population of Italy as 8,000,000 in the Year 1, but only 5,000,ooo in the Year 1000, hundreds of years after the fall of the Roman Empire.
As peat moss and fossil fuels were added, population of some of the colder areas of the world could grow.
In the published GDP figures we see, no distinction is made between the portion that is due to population growth and the portion that is due to rise in the standard of living (that is, rise in GDP per capita).
No breakdown by country is available, but this period includes rebuilding period after World War II for Europe and Japan, and the period with a huge increase in consumer debt in the United States. Average increase in per capita GDP for the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, based on work of Angus Maddison for 2000 and prior, and USDA real GDP and population data subsequent to that date. If we look at long-term world oil production versus price (Figure 9), we see that growth in consumption was rising rapidly until about 1970. Most of the infrastructure (roads, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, schools) in the USA, Europe, and Japan had been built with oil at a $20 per barrel level.
Average percent growth in real GDP between 2005 and 2011 for selected groups, based on USDA GDP data in 2005 US$.
The combination of low interest rates and high prices encouraged oil production from shale formations, helping to keep world oil production rising, despite a drop in oil production in the North Sea, Alaska and Mexico.
World Oil Supply (production including biofuels, natural gas liquids) and Brent monthly average spot prices, based on EIA data. But since 2009, oil consumption has continued to rise, thanks to high prices and the additional oil from US shale. It looked like it could for a while, thanks to all of the financial manipulation, but this is not really the case.” Meanwhile, we see in Figure 8 that for the combination of the EU, USA, and Japan, growth in per capita GDP has been very low in the period since 2000, reflecting the influence of high oil prices on these economies. Average growth in per-capita GDP for selected economies, based on work of Angus Maddison for Year 1 to 2000, and based on USDA real GDP figures in 2010 US$ for 2000 to 2014. Other factors in the slowdown include the impact pollution is having on the Chinese people, the slowdown in the European and Japanese economies, and the fact that the Chinese market for condominiums and factories is rapidly becoming “saturated”. Chart by Lauri Myllyvirta showing a preliminary estimate of 2014 coal consumption in China.
The design of the system is such that the economy can only grow; shrinkage tends to cause collapse. They tend to be high cost when indirect costs, such as the cost of long distance transmission and the cost of mitigating intermittency, are considered. Starting in 2005-2006, she decided to apply her skills to the question of how oil and other limits would affect the world.
An addtional factor; part of such consumption takes time from the citizens, which implies they cannot spend money on other things.
Those inexpensive PCs and TVs and solar panels made by inexpensive Chinese labor will get less expensive as China becomes the robotics capital of the world. If we did this, what would such a change mean for GDP, based on historical Energy and GDP relationships back to 1820? World Energy Consumption by Source, Based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects and together with BP Statistical Data on 1965 and subsequent. I have also assumed that non-fossil fuels (some combination of wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, nuclear, and hydro) could be ramped up by 72%, so that total energy consumption “only” decreases by 50%.
Forecast of world energy consumption, assuming fossil fuel consumption decreases by 80% by 2050, and non fossil fuels increase so that total fuel consumption decreases by “only” 50%.
Forecast of per capita energy consumption, using the energy estimates in Figure 2 divided by world population estimates by the UN.
You may have heard about recent declines in energy consumption in Europe and the US, but these declines have been more than offset by increases in energy consumption in China, India, and the rest of the “developing” world. The reason I consider it a best-case scenario is because it assumes that the patterns we saw on the up-slope will continue on the down-slope. Given past relationships, this would be especially the case for Europe and the United States. The decrease would likely be greater in higher income countries, such as the United States and Europe, because a more equitable sharing of resources between rich and poor nations would be needed, if the poor nations are to have enough of the basics. These estimates are not available for every year, but we have estimates for them for several dates going back through history. Average annual growth rates during selected periods, selected based on data availability, for population growth, energy growth, and real GDP growth. Regression analysis (Figure 5, below) shows that they are highly correlated, with an r squared of 0.74.
Regression analysis of average annual percent change in world energy vs world GDP, with world energy percent change the independent variable. While arguments can be made that we will redouble our efforts toward greater efficiency if we have less fuel, any transition to more fuel-efficient vehicles, or more efficient electricity generation, has a cost involved, and uses fuel, so may be less common, rather than more common in the future. Regression analysis of average annual percent change in world energy vs world GDP excluding the periods 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000, with world energy percent change the independent variable. Thus, the world economy would even to a greater extent be in “recession territory” between now and 2050. If we look at population increases compared to energy growth by period (Figure 8), population growth is moderately correlated with energy growth, with an r squared of 0.55. Regression analysis of population growth compared to energy growth, based on annual averages, with energy growth the independent variable.
Even if this model fit very well (which it doesn’t), it still wouldn’t necessarily be predictive during periods of energy contraction. Comparison of average growth in total world energy consumed with the average amount consumed per person, for periods since 1820. Regression analysis comparing total average increase in world energy with average increase in energy per capita, with average increase in world energy the independent variable.
This seems to occur because population growth more than offsets efficiency growth, as women continue to give birth to more babies than required to survive to adulthood.
There are few energy possibilities that are less fossil fuel dependent, such as solar thermal (hot water bottles left in the sun to warm) and biofuels made in small quantities for local use. Average annual growth in GDP in energy and in population, for selected periods back to the year 1 AD.
We know that in the 1000 to 1500 and 1500 to 1820 time periods, early energy sources (peat moss, water power, wind power, animal labor) became more widespread. If our per capita energy consumption drops to the level it was in 1905, can we realistically expect to have robust international trade, and will other systems hold together? FF supply was up 183 million tonnes oil equivalent (mtoe) in 2013 while new renewable supply was up 42 mtoe from 2012. The fall in oil’s share has been picked up by coal and the only simple way for this substitution to occur is for oil fired power generation to close.
The rate of increase of CO2 continued with no change but the increased emissions are more from coal and from China and India.
One request, could you please expand the tag cloud to include China, Turkey, world, etc, to make it easier to find the relevant articles in the rapidly growing archive?
Climate can be viewed as the renewable resource with Sun’s energy as a energy component and oceans as water reservoirs (material components).
Such approach could very easy endanger the future climate conditions, making the life of ecology sensible plants and animals almost impossible, and since all species live in natural balance that would affect all life on earth.
We can see that energy consumption in the first half of the 20th century has doubled, and after this period, in the second half of the 20th century world came to a considerably higher energy consumption.
Two main problems of non-renewable energy sources are limited quantity and environment pollution. This primarily affects to the energy gained from biomass which has the same effect as fossil fuels, and that is CO2 emissions when combusting, but carbon circle is at least closed in that case. Part of reflected sun radioation is reflected back to Earth by greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4, HFC, PFC, SF6), and that effect is responsible for temperatures on the Earth. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
If this energy becomes high cost, we will see that countries lose their advantage over other countries, and their economic growth rate slows. Workers find that their wages go farther, allowing them to buy more goods, in addition to the ones that they otherwise would have purchased. The situation might also be considered increasing productivity of workers, because the normal abilities of workers are leveraged through the additional tools made possible by cheap energy products. Our networked economy sends back strange signals–namely inadequate demand and low prices–when the cost of energy products is too high relative to wages. So the long-term downward trend in world GDP growth has lasted at least 44 years at this point.


Coal allowed many types of new technology including hydroelectric dams, trains, and steam powered boats.
My discussion earlier about cheap energy having a favorable impact on the amount of goods an economy could create relates primarily to the second kind of growth (rise in the standard of living). Compared to the period before fossil fuels (generally before 1820), the population growth rate is still exceedingly high. If we look at the earliest periods, (Years 1 to 1000; 1000 to 1500, and even most places in 1500 to 1820), the average per capita income seems to have been equivalent to about $1 or $2 per day, today. If we look at percentages of world population at various points in time for selected countries and country groups, we get the distribution shown in Figure 7. None of the economies were at a very high level, so most workers, if they survived a collapse, could find work at their same occupation (generally farming), if they could find another group that would provide protection from attacks by outsiders.
These colder areas soon “maxed out” in population, so population growth had to slow down greatly or stop.
If the work-around is cheap (immunization for a tropical disease, for example), population may be able to expand with only a small amount of additional energy consumption. Changing to a higher price level is very difficult, because repair costs are much higher and because an economy that uses very much high-priced oil in its energy mix is not competitive with countries using a cheaper fuel mix. Thus, for a while, the conflict between high prices and the ability of economies to pay for these high prices was resolved in favor of high prices. Both of these factors, as well as the long-term adverse impact of $100 per barrel oil prices on the economy, brought oil price down to its current level, which is around $50 per barrel (Figure 10).
This is a chart by one analyst showing the apparent recent decrease in coal consumption. If my view of the situation is correct, then we need an ever-rising amount of  inexpensive energy to keep the system going. It is hard to create large enough quantities of new renewables: China has been rapidly adding wind capacity, but the impact of these additions can barely can be seen at the top of Figure 14.
But China will also be developing military strength along with economic strength, and we will still have no energy.
Amounts before black line are actual; amounts after black lines are forecast in this scenario. For example, it assumes that financial systems will continue to operate as today, international trade will continue as in the past, and that there will not be major problems with overthrown governments or interruptions to electrical power. Here, I am relying primarily on population and GDP estimates of Angus Maddison, and energy estimates of Vaclav Smil, supplemented by more recent data (mostly for 2008 to 2010) by BP, the EIA, and USDA Economic Research Service. Also, the big savings in energy change relative to GDP change seems to come in the 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 periods, when we were aggressively moving into a service economy and were working hard to reduce oil consumption. Using the regression equation shown in Figure 8, population growth would still be positive with an annual contraction of energy of 1.72% per year, but just barely. While it is easy to make estimates that make the transition sound easy, when a person looks at the historical data, making the transition to using less fuel looks quite difficult, even in a best-case scenario.
This is testimony to the absolute failure of energy policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. Once all oil fired generation has been closed, expect severe upwards pressure on the oil price.
If national governments were really serious about tackling emissions it should be abundantly clear that current strategy is not working. But as you point out, if you go back in time a bit to 2010 there is a change in the post-1999 data.
He could direct me to a guy in DECC who was tasked with reporting UK stats to JODI but didn’t know where BP and the other agencies got their data from.
Two years later the historic statistics on oil and gas, production and consumption all continue to shift, and I am none the wiser on the reasons for the changes.
Energy of the Sun supports circling of water on the Earth, therefore making life on Earth possible.
Biggest problems of renewable energy sources (water energy excluded) are price and small amount of gained energy. If greenhouse effect would not exist Earth’s temperatures would be about 30°C lower than they are now. These low prices are also a signal that we are reaching other limits of a networked economy, such as too much debt and taxes that are too high for workers to pay. There would be a carry-over to population growth as well, because parents who have more adequate resources can afford more children. The alternative to population growth was emigration, with the “New World” growing in its share of the world’s population and the “Old World” contracting.
In fact, we see very large increases in per capita GDP for these countries, as fossil fuels were added, particularly oil. The situation was more or less resolved by making a number of changes to the economy (switching electricity production from oil to other fuels wherever possible; building smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles), as well as ramping up oil production in places such as the North Sea, Alaska, and Mexico.
When we looked at the impact of the recession, the countries with the highest percentage of oil consumption in 2004 had the worst economic growth rates in the period 2005 to 2011.
The $50 per barrel price is still very high relative to the cost of oil when our infrastructure was built, but low relative to the current cost of oil production.
We have gone from trying to grow the world economy on oil, to trying to grow the world economy on coal. Part of the high cost is the cost of the change-over in infrastructure, including huge amounts of new natural gas pipeline and new natural gas powered vehicles. Without supporting systems, such as roads and electricity transmission lines (which depend on oil), we cannot operate the electric systems that these devices are part of for the long term, either. If the part-time minimum wage person needs to feed herself and one or two others, it is a problem.
Physicists created a new medium, engineers a new design, manufacturers a new product, society a new growth opportunity. It also assumes that we will continue to transition to a service economy, and that there will be continued growth in energy efficiency.
Services tend to be more optional–getting one’s hair cut more frequently, attending additional years at a university, or sending grandma to an Assisted Living Center.
If we exclude those time periods (Figure 6, below), the regression analysis shows a better fit (r squared = .82).
For example, wind turbines and solar PV panels require fossil fuels for their manufacture, transport, and maintenance. To keep business processes working together, each part of every supply chain must have the fuel it needs.
The biggest change, however, came with the addition of fossil fuels, in the period after 1820. On the CO2 account, low emissions nuclear power has been replaced by low emissions renewable energy. The actual energy substitutions are a little more complex. This chart shows quite clearly how on a CO2 account, new renewables are substituting mainly for declining nuclear. From the year 2000 the NGL numbers seem to be erratically included for a number of countries after BP modified many of the 2000 to 2011 histories in last year’s Review. Globally, there is no major improvement because amount of energy gained from these clean energy sources is negligible to amount of energy that is gained from fossil fuels.
Renewable energy sources have huge potential, but at this moment our current technology development does not allow us to rely strictly upon them. Since the concentration of the carbon dioxide has grown during the last century, greenhouse effect is stronger than it used to be. Since in the future we will be forced to satisfy our energy needs from renewable sources, we have to think of the way to transform renewable sources to an usable energy. Canadian Energy Researcher Vaclav Smil gives historical energy consumption estimates back to 1800 in his book Energy Transitions – History, Requirements and Prospects.
So the direction for the future may be toward a mix that includes fewer, rather than more, services, so will be more energy intensive. Even nuclear energy requires fossil fuels for its maintenance, and for decommissioning old power plants, as well as for mining, transporting, and processing uranium.
Nuclear power plants are not dangerous for the atmosphere, but substances created as the result of nuclear reaction remain radioactive for years, and should be stored in special chambers.
The main problems are expensive and long researches, with most transformations relating just to the production of electrical energy.
There are other low-income countries that might increase industrial production, such as in Africa, but they are lacking coal or other cheap fuels to fuel their production.
Thus, the 1.13% “gain” in GDP due to greater efficiency and greater use of “services” rather than “goods” may shrink or disappear altogether.
Trying to set up a rationing system that handles all of these issues would be nearly impossible. Solution how to get out of this crisis is very simple: return to less harmful energy sources. Consequences of global warming are ice melting, rise of the sea level, agriculture influence and etc. Factor that contributes to higher research costs is also variety of renewable energy sources. New renewables are in part substituting oil (biofuel) and nuclear (geothermal, wind and solar), though the real picture will be more complex.
Major sources of CO2 are wood and biomass combustion, deforestation and fossil fuels combustion. Countries that signed this protocol obliged themselves to decrease the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Every country has its own determined goal percentage in decreasing emission of CO2, and it all relates to decreasing it until year 2012 compared to year 1990.



Herpes pictures skin rash
Hsv1 sores in mouth
  • princessa85, 09.09.2013 at 17:33:44
    And put me on population and energy consumption by country meds immediately development of skin cancer by killing cancer cells and sparking the immune.
  • katyonok, 09.09.2013 at 15:15:21
    That causes cold sores, your.