2011 State of the Future

2.10. Amount of carbon emissions (Nature processes 3 or 3.5 billion tons via trees, ocean algae. Today about 7 billion tons are emitted)



Scenario 1: Business as Usual

• 
  20 billion tonnes
  

• 
  25 billion tonnes
  
• 
  15
  
• 
  See IPCC “A1 or A2,” Millennium Assessment “Global Orchestration,” GEO3 “Market First,” (We already spent a lot of time thinking about this. Might as well use our results.)
  
• 
  Disagree: about 15 billion tonnes in 2020(15gtc in 2100)
  
• 
  Stable
  
• 
  8.3billion (1 billion increase per decade)
  
• 
  Big differences of values in the scenarios seem doubtful to me; do not remember the actual figures now.
  
• 
  25 bill
  
• 
  Disagree; 15 billion tonnes (in 2020).
  
• 
  Cannot comment without a time-point
  
• 
  Comment: Do you mean carbon or CO2? And by what time? Absolute numbers are thus difficult to comment on. Relation between the scenarios could be 100:60:40:110
  
• 
  These are meaningless numbers, if not compared to current output, and the recommendations of the IPPC
  
• 
  Not likely, economic collapse more likely
  
• 
  Probable around 10
  
• 
  Are you asking for peak emissions per year? Emissions in 2010 will be at 14 Ce (equivalent, LUC included); my guess is that the peak will be at about 15, in all scenarios
  

Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash

• 
  2: 5 billion tones
  

• 
  20 billion tonnes
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  See IPCC B2?, Millennium Assessment “Adapting Mosaic”? (but not a very good approximation), GEO3 Sustainability First
  
• 
  Disagree: about 10 billion tonnes in 2020(5gtc in 2100)
  
• 
  Dropping slow
  
• 
  7.3billion
  
• 
  More like 10 billion tonnes
  
• 
  10 bill
  
• 
  Disagree.12 billion tonnes.
  
• 
  Cannot comment without a timepoint
  
• 
  Agree but it would lie between 5 to 10 billion tonne by 2020 (If there are other treaties like Kyoto protocol).
  
• 
  15 billion tonnes
  
• 
  Disagree- expect not as much improvement ( 6-7 B tonnes)
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  Too optimistic
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  75% of business as usual
  
• 
  15 billion tonnes. Extreme flexibility without destroying global economy requires tech advances
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  The big issue is whether the US, China, and Russia adopt Kyoto goals.
  

Scenario 3: High Tech

• 
  3: 3 billion tones
  

• 
  20billion tonnes
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  See IPCC B1?, Millennium Assessment “Techno Garden,” GEO3 “Policy First “?
  
• 
  Disagree: about 10 billion tonnes in 2020 (5gtc in 2100)
  
• 
  Dropping fast
  
• 
  Guess 8 billion tonnes
  
• 
  5 bill
  
• 
  Disagree.9 billion tonnes.
  
• 
  Cannot comment without a timepoint
  
• 
  13 billion tonnes
  
• 
  50% of business as usual
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  10
  
• 
  Agree but only after 2040-2050
  
• 
  20bt
  
• 
  Too optimistic
  
• 
  Basically just for aviation
  
• 
  International laws that protect forests (as carbon sinks) are a possibility in this scenario.
  

Scenario 4: Political Turmoil

• 
  30 billion tones
  

• 
  Probably very high since coal is the only viable alternative to oil. Natural gas will be too slow.
  
• 
  30 billion tonnes
  
• 
  Not much more than in scenario. 1 because of decline of global economy.
  
• 
  See IPCC “A1 or A2”, Millennium Assessment “Order from Strength”, GEO3 “Security First”
  
• 
  Disagree: about 15 billion tonnes in 2020 (30 gtc in 2100)
  
• 
  Uncontrolled
  
• 
  20billion
  
• 
  Possible
  
• 
  Disagree.23 billion tonnes
  
• 
  Cannot comment without a time point
  
• 
  Less
  
• 
  15 billion
  
• 
  20 billion tonnes
  
• 
  150% of business as usual (agree)
  
• 
  Not likely, economic collapse more likely
  
• 
  Agree but no as high as 30 because it depends more on USA and China, India than entire world
  
• 
  35bt
  
• 
  Will not be as high as scenario 1
  
• 
  25 billion tonnes
  

2.11. Status of carbon sequestration, capture, storage, science, policy



Scenario 1: Business as Usual Some moderate progress

• 
  Sequestration at larger generation facilities
  
• 
  Agree(in Medium Term)
  
• 
  Little
  
• 
  Little
  
• 
  Increasing pressure, due to green and ethical funds
  
• 
  Sequestration is a niche, not A/THE Answer – much better approaches available.
  
• 
  Disagree: good progress
  
• 
  Agree – if “linear scenario”
  
• 
  No change. This is a very limited and totally untried tech
  
• 
  Disagree - slight progress expected
  
• 
  The only real carbon sequestration technique is the one with by-products. The others (ocean and earth) are doing more harm than good
  
• 
  The atmosphere is already polluted; don't pollute the earth and the oceans with pumping carbon; invest more in new technologies for producing carbon nanotubes and other by-products by carbon sequestration
  
• 
  Yes, but not in developing countries
  
• 
  Get real, just a distraction
  
• 
  Good progress
  
• 
  Aggressively perused
  

Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash Very aggressively pursued.

• 
  Carbon trading cost exceeding CO2 capture/ sequestration costs increase the latter
  

• 
  Very aggressively pursued even at medium or small generation facilities
  
• 
  Little
  
• 
  Disagree – impossible to achieve
  
• 
  No change. This is a very limited and totally untried tech
  
• 
  The only real carbon sequestration technique is the one with by-products. The others (ocean and earth) are doing more harm than good
  
• 
  The atmosphere is already polluted; don't pollute the earth and the oceans with pumping carbon; invest more in new technologies for producing carbon nanotubes and other by-products by carbon sequestration
  
• 
  Moderate progress. Carbon trading cost exceeding CO2 capture/ sequestration costs increase the latter
  
• 
  They will search for depullution more than sequestration
  
• 
  Agree. But not enough to stop Little Ice Age.
  

Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash: Aggressively pursued

• 
  Agree(in Long Term)
  
• 
  Large scale, with high efficiency, low energy use
  
• 
  Pursued
  
• 
  Moderate
  
• 
  Disagree
  
• 
  Will reduce the cost of sequestration
  
• 
  Moderate due to energy conservation
  
• 
  The only real carbon sequestration technique is the one with by-products. The others (ocean and earth) are doing more harm than good
  
• 
  The atmosphere is already polluted; don't pollute the earth and the oceans with pumping carbon; invest more in new technologies for producing carbon nanotubes and other by-products by carbon sequestration
  
• 
  Agree, major utilities are looking to invest right now
  
• 
  Moderate progress
  
• 
  Science and storage advances; but policy non-existent.
  
• 
  Not so much
  
• 
  Moderately so. Solar, earth or space, could bypass a lot of this.
  
• 
  Irrelevant
  

Scenario 4: Political Turmoil: Little

• 
  There won’t be much Sequestration.
  
• 
  Little
  
• 
  Nil
  
• 
  Agree – other security-related issues more important
  
• 
  The only real carbon sequestration technique is the one with by-products. The others (ocean and earth) are doing more harm than good
  
• 
  The atmosphere is already polluted; don't pollute the earth and the oceans with pumping carbon; invest more in new technologies for producing carbon nanotubes and other by-products by carbon sequestration
  
• 
  Agree for progress in developing countries, India
  
• 
  Little or no progress.
  

2.12. Key Technological Breakthroughs



Scenario 1: Business as Usual Nextgen Coal Plant, Nuclear Ocean and land wind farms, solar towers

• 
  The terms are not such
  
• 
  Just more coal use. Not much technological change.
  
• 
  Off shore wind in Europe before 2020
  
• 
  Nextgen Coal Plant, Nuclear, Ocean and land wind farms, Solar towers, Fuel cell, Hydrogen production
  
• 
  IGCC, Off-shore wind farm, Distributed power generation
  
• 
  Nextgen nuclear.
  
• 
  Toward 2050
  
• 
  No nukes, too expensive
  
• 
  Probably
  
• 
  Fission out, fusion yes
  
• 
  And hydrogen cells
  
• 
  Plastic Nano PV, Genomic and artificial photosynthesis for H2, seawater AG biomass. Photocatalytric electrolysis of water, lenrs,ZPE
  
• 
  Agree, but not all at the same pace
  
• 
  Agree; but efficiency improvements missing
  
• 
  Only solar seems to be feasible at the moment
  
• 
  Return of the nuclear
  
• 
  Breakthrough in power generation technologies.
  
• 
  Agree – but only for changes in coal exploitation, perhaps more solar energy, wind energy – implausible.
  
• 
  Several breakthroughs are withheld by IP owners until they can maximize their market exploitation
  
• 
  Forget the first 2 the others could help, if used with other solar-based tech
  
• 
  Disagree - unlikely to generate levers for next generation
  
• 
  Agree with all but Nuclear - believe we will find another way
  
• 
  Smaller progress than indicated
  
• 
  New concepts diffuse poorly
  
• 
  New generation of nuclear power plants
  
• 
  Possible
  
• 
  New economic models which don’t need growth
  
• 
  More nuclear power stations
  
• 
  Agree, plus breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and use
  
• 
  Possibly also superconductive energy grid, hybrid cars provide backup power for grid
  
• 
  Agree over time scale of two to three decades
  
• 
  Only wind -- a little for electricity and a lot from empty or useless declarations -- is a major part of present trends.
  
• 
  They come, but maybe in the wrong places in this scenario
  

Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash Ocean wind cities (nanotech 3-layer sheets change photovoltaic efficiencies)

• 
  This corresponds to the following scenario
  
• 
  Fuel cell applied small towns (apartment flats, buildings) with high efficiency
  
• 
  Breakthroughs in energy efficiency (buildings, traffic, greening of industry…)
  
• 
  Hydrogen, IGCC-CCS, Off-shore wind farm, Distributed power generation
  
• 
  Photovoltaic always limited by incident radiation. Next gen. Nuclear
  
• 
  Solution of problem of continental grid dependent on intermittent solar and wind
  
• 
  For 2030
  
• 
  Possible
  
• 
  Very likely
  
• 
  In addition nextgen. Coal incl., small scale local production from gas ( incl. Hydrogen), i.e. Micro-turbines, fuel cells
  
• 
  Agree, the nanotechnologies already has obtained it today
  
• 
  Disagree: missing are - high improvements in efficiency on supply and demand side, building-integrated PV; carbon capture
  
• 
  They are not the only technologies
  
• 
  Advances in the biomass production
  
• 
  Agree – but only for solar energy.
  
• 
  Hype culture results in several “false breakthroughs” being promoted – come back to haunt movement later.
  
• 
  Maybe
  
• 
  Smaller progress than indicated
  
• 
  Distributed bio, solar and wind energy; Wind and solar thermal power; renewable traffic fuels
  
• 
  Energy is not the only resource or environmental problem!!
  
• 
  Also bioenergy
  
• 
  Efficiency, biomass, solar and wind power
  
• 
  Agree, plus significant use of biomass energy
  
• 
  Photovoltaics are basically all or nothing. If they become economically important that makes the scenario "High Tech Economy"
  
• 
  This is not the Nader I know. More likely would be technologies to drug people.
  
• 
  Possible
  
• 
  Also bioenergy
  

Scenario 3: High Tech Wireless energy transmission. If coal can be burned with low CO2 emissions, then US, China, Russia, Nigeria benefit

• 
  I doubt wireless energy transmission
  
• 
  Gasification of coal by combined cycle and sequestration of CO2
  
• 
  In fact, I do not put large hopes in wireless energy transmission. I see rather hydrogen technologies here.
  
• 
  Hydrogen, IGCC-CCS, Off-shore wind farm, Distributed power generation, Advanced nuclear
  
• 
  Superconducting transmission lines probably a better alternative
  
• 
  Solution of problem of continental grid dependent on intermittent solar and wind
  
• 
  Disagree: I do not expect that wireless energy transmission will become viable until 2020
  
• 
  Disagree, real breakthrough will be drastic reduction in energy consumption
  
• 
  Wind power, solar dominant
  
• 
  Doubt first statement. Agree second one.
  
• 
  Agree, doubts about wireless energy other than sun
  
• 
  Plus solar farms
  
• 
  Partly agree: missing: hydrogen, fuel cells; superconductor lines
  
• 
  Not seems to be possible
  
• 
  Application of the biotechnology to the production of biomass energy
  
• 
  Agree – only for return to exploitation of coal
  
• 
  Cheap “Clean” oil from coal technology (e.g. SASOL)
  
• 
  Likely emergence of other energy sources beyond oil and coal
  
• 
  Energy is not the only resource or environmental problem!!
  
• 
  Disagree - unlikely to be feasible. New technologies will include growing use of marine power (wave, tidal)
  
• 
  Agree others but no wireless energy transformation
  
• 
  Distributed bio, solar and wind energy; Ocean, wind, solar thermal and HDR geothermal centralized power; renewable traffic fuels
  
• 
  Not likely
  
• 
  Energy from space, Stirling solar farms, better batteries, true brain-like intelligence managing power grids, maybe Stirling vehicles, maybe carbon-tolerant alkaline fuel cells or truly solid truly proton-exchanging electrolyte fuel cells, plug-in hybrids
  
• 
  Fuel cells widely used in rural areas
  
• 
  Nanoscale energy storage in ultracapacitors or advanced batteries.
  
• 
  Cheap solar makes energy negligibly expensive
  
• 
  The core hypothesis of this scenario, of a generic "high-tech economy" is seriously flawed. We already HAVE a high-tech economy. Multiple huge breakthroughs that would make the World economy overall much "higher-tech" than it is now are unlikely. The "Internet breakthrough" is given as an example. That doesn't quite fit the rest of the description of this scenario, but it is on a better track. It would be a good example for more specific scenarios, such as a 'hydrogen economy' scenario, i.e. consequences of a brake-through in cheaply generating huge amounts of hydrogen (but that might still require more breakthroughs, particularly in hydrogen storage) than the Internet required, which depended only on evolutionary improvements of telecommunication and microprocessor technologies). A 'breakthrough in photovoltaics' scenario might be more comparable. Or a scenario of "discovery of huge new oil reserves" in geologic formations that previously have been neglected as impossible or highly improbable locations for oil.
  

Scenario 4: Political Turmoil Military portable energy production, storage and transmission systems

• 
  Massive power meaning?
  
• 
  Concentrated in developed countries
  
• 
  Disagree – for military purposes not needed, unless long terms “stabilization operations”; for civilian uses unnecessary
  
• 
  Processed foods and water storage break troughs have spin-off impact on famine and drought events.
  
• 
  Energy is not the only resource or environmental problem!!
  
• 
  WMD control
  
• 
  Not significant
  

2.13. Artificial bacteria and other micro-organisms are created to produce fuels and chemicals by 2020



Scenario 1: Business as Usual

• 
  Likely
  

• 
  Agree. First demonstration only
  
• 
  May not feasible
  
• 
  By 2025-2030
  
• 
  At best these guys use sunlight to convert discard into useful energy. They are limited to 1kw/sqm, as is photovoltaic. Can this ever be a significant contribution?
  
• 
  Don’t know
  
• 
  Unlikely
  
• 
  Oppositions of oil companies
  
• 
  Possible
  
• 
  Likely by 2030 in commercial scale
  
• 
  2025
  
• 
  Agree – not only for energy
  
• 
  Very dream world
  
• 
  Unlikely
  
• 
  Possible
  
• 
  Later year
  
• 
  Moderately likely
  
• 
  2025-2030 more likely
  
• 
  As Dr. Heineken says, by 1800. But scale and cost not enough to change awful trends in time, in present trends.
  

Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash

• 
  Some cases. Environmentalist split on the issues
  

• 
  May not feasible
  
• 
  Actions would be more aligned- agreement under conditions.
  
• 
  Maybe
  
• 
  Agree – split among environmentalists with no real impact on reality
  
• 
  Unlikely
  
• 
  Fully agree, preference to solar sources
  
• 
  Creating new life forms will be significant concern
  
• 
  Yes, depends on scenario. Not in Nader world.
  
• 
  Large part of environmentalists positive
  

Scenario 3: High Tech

• 
  Likely
  
• 
  Possible
  
• 
  Likely
  
• 
  Likely.
  
• 
  Highly uncertain whether it could sustainability produce enough mixed alcohol fuel, for example, to power all the world's (plug-in hybrid or Stirling) cars. Great hope, requires creativity on a scale we haven't seen lately, but maybe doable.
  
• 
  One possibility is the use of bacteria in down hole applications. They "eat" the thick residues and break them down into lower viscosity residuals
  

Scenario 4: Political Turmoil

• 
  Not likely
  

• 
  It wont happen
  
• 
  Not likely
  
• 
  Disagree. Again, wars may actually accelerate these developments.
  
• 
  Likely in developed countries
  
• 
  Disagree – conflicts may accelerate research on alternatives
  
• 
  If major economies not in turmoil then this is still likely
  
• 
  Unlikely
  
• 
  Change - likely but for military purpose
  
• 
  Disagree - turmoil not the critical factor
  
• 
  Not likely.
  
• 
  May be important to WMD development and control.
  
• 
  War brings technological progress
  
• 
  Likely
  

2.14. Main transportation energy sources



Scenario 1: Business as Usual

• 
  Not likely
  

• 
  It wont happen
  
• 
  Not likely
  
• 
  Disagree. Again, wars may actually accelerate these developments.
  
• 
  Likely in developed countries
  
• 
  Disagree – conflicts may accelerate research on alternatives
  
• 
  If major economies not in turmoil then this is still likely
  
• 
  Unlikely
  
• 
  Change - likely but for military purpose
  
• 
  Disagree - turmoil not the critical factor
  
• 
  Not likely.
  
• 
  May be important to WMD development and control.
  
• 
  War brings technological progress
  
• 
  Likely
  

Scenario 2: Environmental Backlash Mix of gasoline, electric, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen

• 
  Cars will be smaller, and may use natural gas. Otherwise, we will ride the bus and walk
  
• 
  Hybrid will increase its share a lot Public transport with electricity
  
• 
  Hybrids rule
  
• 
  Hydrogen /fuel cell technology for private vehicles, Various forms of renewable-generated electricity and LPG for public vehicles
  
• 
  Agree, more hydrogen though
  
• 
  Mainly as the next
  
• 
  Agree – with biofuels
  
• 
  Likely
  
• 
  Agree but do not expect hydrogen or biofuels to develop as much
  
• 
  Mix of petroleum based, electric, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen; hybrids
  
• 
  5% private cars
  
• 
  And hybrids
  
• 
  Most probable
  
• 
  Not even Nader could store enough hydrogen. Depends on sub scenario.
  

Scenario 3: High Tech: Electric vs. Hydrogen, new hybrids

• 
  Agree. 2030
  
• 
  Maybe the same mix as in the green scenario.
  
• 
  Hybrid, hydrogen
  
• 
  Broader mix
  
• 
  Hydrogen /fuel cell technology for private vehicles, Various forms of renewable-generated electricity and LPG for public vehicles
  
• 
  Yes, but more hydrogen
  
• 
  Agree and more efficient public transportation and communication
  
• 
  Agree, but beyond 2020
  
• 
  Hydrogen will become an important source
  
• 
  “Clean” transport fuels created from fossil fuels – reduces global dependencies. Later supplement hydrogen solutions
  
• 
  Hopefully, but likely to still have infrastructure issues on widespread adoption
  
• 
  Mix of biofuels, petroleum based, electric, natural gas, hydrogen; hybrids
  
• 
  A mix likely
  
• 
  Electric or mixed biofuels
  
• 
  Mix of gasoline, electric, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen
  
• 
  Likely
  
• 
  Fuel cells
  
• 
  Possibly flywheels utilizing advanced materials. Possibly personal mass transit making cars mostly obsolete
  

Scenario 4: Political Turmoil Gasoline and hybrids

• 
  Gasoline
  
• 
  Alternative fuel with local supply
  
• 
  More natural gas – based fuels than now
  
• 
  Agree, with significant reduction in transportation
  
• 
  Few hybrids
  
• 
  And gas
  
• 
  Disagree – conflicts in developing countries accelerate research
  
• 
  Major economies still likely to explore alternative energy sources
  
• 
  Agree, plus biofuels
  
• 
  Petroleum based, biofuels in small-scale production and use
  
• 
  Donkeys, while it lasts
  
• 
  Other forms of fossil fuel and nuclear
  
• 
  Same as business as usual