orthonormal comments on New Year's Predictions Thread - Less Wrong

18 Post author: MichaelVassar 30 December 2009 09:39PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (426)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: whpearson 31 December 2009 12:51:13AM 3 points [-]

An interesting article on china and energy. Nuclear has a lead time (optimistically ) of 3 years, so their prediction of 60-90 GWe won't be too far off. It actually looks like they are planning more wind than nuclear. I'm really curious where they expect the 500 GWe odd of energy they don't mention to come from. All coal? That'll be pretty dirty.

I was probably a little overconfident in my initial bet. I do expect the ratio of energy consumption growth to population growth to trend downwards though.

Comment author: orthonormal 31 December 2009 01:57:15AM 2 points [-]

The article estimates that China's electricity capacity will double from 2008 to 2020; it doesn't seem to list an estimate for electricity production, but I'd think it would trend in much the same way, significantly faster than China's (rapidly falling) population increase. Reading this article makes me even more eager than before to take the "over" at these odds.

Comment author: whpearson 31 December 2009 12:27:56PM *  4 points [-]

I'm rethinking my wager. To give you some information that I found. Which I should have looked at before.

Average energy consumption increase over 15 years to 2008 has been 2.13%. This is very choppy data it varies between 0.09% and 4.5%(2004 then trending downwards). This included a doubling on energy consumption by china in 7 years (2001-2008).

Average population growth is trending downwards and is at 1.1%.

I was probably putting too much weight on my own countries not very well thought out energy policy.

What odds would you give on energy consumption growth rate being lower for the next 10 years than the previous 10 (2.4%)?

Comment author: orthonormal 02 January 2010 01:28:59AM *  3 points [-]

Because of the Second World's larger growth rate (and the fact that they occupy a larger part of the total now), I think the odds of energy growth being lower than 2.4% are somewhat worse than even. I'm quite metauncertain; I don't think I'd actually bet unless someone were giving me 3:2 odds to bet the 'over', or 4:1 odds to bet the 'under'.