Vaclav Smil’s quote about US global influence and fossil fuels suggests a correspondence between the ability to harness energy and to wield global power. This seems to fit the great powers of wind energy (Spain, the Netherlands) and coal (Britain) as well. What do you think? If it holds true, who/what might be the next to turn new energy sources into global power?
congo96, 
midara, 
eddietastic, and 26 others are discussing.
jonl 10:00 pm on February 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Looking at the present, oil is becoming one of the most precious commodity. In this case, those who will hold the most power will be those who have access to it, Middle East nations. From the Manning article, we read how the US is spending billions on military to keep access to the oil open.
I think the world has to start looking at new renewable sources of energy or reusing/improving on old ones. This would mean countries with leading scientists and inventors are in the for front to gain global power.
natashap 12:28 pm on March 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that China is definitely emerging as a global power. They have such a large population that they have a larger workforce to pull from to generate new power concepts and implement them. They also are extremely strong as far as manufacturing goes – most of the products we have are made in China. So even if they aren’t directly in control of energy, they’ll most likely control the production of products that are necessary to implement/use the new energy sources.
bgibson 10:05 pm on March 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that industrial capacity has for a long time been tied to a nations ability to harness energy to power production. I think it may be possible that financial capacity is outstripping the importance of industrial capacity in terms of global power. America’s influence in the twentieth century may have been tied to their assembly lines and automobility, however American influence continues in the twenty first century due to financial interests.
That being said I think that alternative energy sources will be diverse and many different nations will end up specializing. For instance the Dutch boast all the major wind turbine engineering and manufacturing companies. While wind power is not likely to replace fossil fuels (you can’t put a wind farm just anywhere), almost any wind farm or turbine first goes through Dutch hands. Similarly, Scotland has well developed pilot projects exploring tidal power, where the movement of ocean currents generates electricity. If this technology proves viable in the future the Scots will surely have a place as global leaders. One of the interesting things about alternative energy sources is that many of them have serious limitations that prevent global adoption, some nations are landlocked, wind farms take up lots of space, solar panels require significant sunlight, storing and transporting hydrogen is challenging… I think that global energy requirements will be met by a wide range of new energy sources, and won’t be dominated by one source as it is now.
roypat 2:46 am on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It may be that the next form of energy to turn a country into a global superpower has not been discovered yet. Oil is still so dominant as an energy source – and actually, in the future, it will likely be those countries (Canada & Venezuela, oil sands, or even the US with shale gas) with unconventional oil sources that will benefit. My first instinct was to say nuclear power, but with the Fukushima incident so recent in my brain (as well as the corresponding ban by Germany on nuclear power) I am not so sure if nuclear can be declared the future.
jenniefrench 12:48 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree that the ability to wield energy corresponds to the potential for world influence and possibly power. In the past it is obvious that those who developed and could mine or access resources of energy could dominate others. Crosby discusses the development of agriculture in this light, and we have also learned about it through the history and documents of Britain and the US. I think natashap has a point that China will probably dominate next as they have the human fuel power, as well as the government drive (ie don’t really need to answer to the people to make decisions) to become very powerful. Likewise, roypat mentioned that the next form of energy to dominate (with which ever country harnesses it first) hasn’t been discovered or popularized yet. I agree with both these responses but I also think that we are moving away from energy/economy dominance. The European Union is a good example of collaboration (or the attempt to collaborate) that has separated itself from the US and is working towards their own goals and values. I think we may see more globally an awareness of energy and its effects, as well as a world that I hope considers its values more frequently than its bank account.
emilym 4:26 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that in the near future, countries with oil will continue to wield a lot of global influence, but that long term, as we (hopefully) move towards more alternative energy sources, the global power that corresponds with energy harnessing capabilities will diffuse across many different nations since there are multiple alternative energy sources. I think a good solution for any country would be to invest in new energy harnessing capabilities and reduce reliance on oil, as dependence on others in the global system for energy is extremely risky and gives those nations providing the energy immense amounts of power.
Danni 9:32 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Ethanol (ie. E85) might be the next to turn new energy sources into global power. It was applied in USA and Brazil. E85 contains 85% Ethanol and 15% fossil fuel. It greatly reduced the dependence of fossil fuel. As the ongoing development of technology, I can see the more efficient manufacture, storage, and application of Ethanol as energy source in the near future. This is called the cellulosic ethanol production plants researching projects, which are under going construction by different commercials. Ethanol actually was extracted and made from different plant materials, including crops and corns. The resources was directly from the agricultural products, therefore they were highly recyclable and comparatively green for the environment. In addition, the costs of manufacturing of ethanol are much cheaper than that of hydrogen, which is another alternative fuel.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/
msmith92 4:32 pm on March 6, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I definitely agree that global power is correlated to the ability to harness energy. However, I think that, for now, those who have access to oil will continue to have power because we are still completely reliant on fossil fuels. Those countries that are able to make use of alternative energy sources will ultimately have a huge advantage, in my opinion. It has certainly been shown throughout history that those countries that are self-reliant have the most global power. LIke many people have said above, as we shift into alternative energy sources, power may dissipated among a number of nations. Maybe, if we have learned our lesson, new power sources will be renewable and thus less localized to specific geographic regions. This may cause countries to be more self-reliant which I think would ultimately be beneficial.
brandond 12:30 am on March 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I number of you have noted that the next great powers will have to harness new sources of energy. Drawing on what some of you (particularly Brendan and Roy) have said about the limitations of nuclear, solar, and wind power: perhaps the next great energy power will be determined not so much by access to these renewable energy sources, but rather by their ability to store and move energy effectively. Example: there is an enormous amount of easily gathered wind energy in the Prairies, but the problem is storing and moving it when and where its needed (on the coasts and along the Great Lakes). Any brilliant ideas for storing energy? How about thousands of modest sized raised water reservoirs? Water gets pumped up during periods of low energy demand, then flows down (through turbines) at times of higher demand. This functions a bit like hydro, but doesn’t require damming a large river, devastation of landscapes, etc.
hannahepperson 12:04 pm on March 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Like a lot of other conversations we’ve been having, harnessing energy might be something that needs to become more localized. it seems like one of the most severe drains on energy is the transporting of it … seems like we should be moving towards developing technologies to harness regionally specific renewable resources. The political implications of this are huge though – especially in an expansive country like canada, which contain so much geographic diversity. If energy harnessing technologies are developed on a much more local scale, what effect would that have on the energy dialogues at the federal level? In Canada, I could imagine there being a lot of provincial debate and conflict over energy equity, for example. Not that we enjoy global, national or regional ‘energy equity’ now anyway, but I could see it being problematic. Even so, I think it is important to begin finding ways to be more industrious with the resources we have within our own localities.
I’m also interested in ways we can capture our own kinetic energy? I feel like I remember reading an article a few years ago about this pilot project in london, where paving pieces were engineered to actually absorb the kinetic energy from foot traffic and supply power to the building … I could have dreamed that up, but I’m fairly confident I read it somewhere … I’ll see if I can’t dig up an article, it’s certainly an intriguing idea.
hannahepperson 12:14 pm on March 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It’s a real thing after all! Go Tokyo! http://inhabitat.com/tokyo-subway-stations-get-piezoelectric-floors/
Also, Brandon – in response to a comment you made in a previous thread, I think it’s valuable to keep in mind the possibility that if grosse military expenditures could be freed up for reallocation, developing and implementing alternative energy technologies could very well become economically feasible…
brandond 5:23 pm on March 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Considered energy resources are a major security issue you’d think the Pentagon might be vested in developing alternative resources. Maybe that’s their plan after they secure as much of the world oil supply as possible, but I doubt it. Although, I guess military force could also be used to harness human kinetic energy.
katehaxt 3:23 pm on March 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
following on from the last post, i agree that the future is going to be about regional, diversified energy sources. i don’ t think we are going to discover the great oil substitute that allows us to carry on ‘as normal’. having energy needs dealt with at a more local level does,as mentioned, does have big political implications,maybe even dissolving the concept of big super power countries. maybe if we are all producing our our power locally and bing more accountable for what we use then we won’t need to wield power globally in the same way ie invade the middle east
phoebe 6:40 pm on March 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree that the ability to harness energy is the key to controlling power. Canada is a possibility for greater global power in the future. Nikiforuk argues strongly that the huge economic developments in Alberta as a result of tar sands has had many negative consequences. Although Canadians are often stereotyped as nice, boring, and reasonable, the huge economic development has drastically changed the face of political government. Examples include the ERGB consistently ignoring health statistics in favour of more development and Leon Benoit, A MP trying to bully Gordon Laxer into silence when Laxer tried to raise the question of energy security of Canada in discussion. Nikiforuk gives concrete examples of Canada’s increasing power because of energy reserves and the corruption of those in power in favour of more money.
tsung 12:35 am on March 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Oil is the blood of a modern society as well as the blood of capitalism; it is what keeps it running and moving. I would say Smil is quite accurate in that yes, whoever has the oil will one day be the powerhouse. Canada has a great card in its hands. The Tar Sands will defiently come into play in the near future as oil resources become much more scarce. Our modern society (planes, cars, assembly lines) in fact from Manning’s article, everything is backed by oil. We need it to function and our dependency on it has not decreased as we continue to consume and produce. I would say Canada will be a greater global power in the distant future, however, we can also see China climbing it’s way up. The US seems to know that they need oil to continue functioning and secure their dominance in the global arena, however, without energy or a supply of it, they know they will loose their position. The world has indulged and locked itself into this system of consumption and reliance on oil. Oil will become the key to power and those who have it has got the upper hand for sure.
youngblutt 7:24 pm on March 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I like what was said about a return to localized energy (and therefore power) to account for the questionable efficiency of renewal energy transportation. However, I wonder if it is a bit too utopian. Consider the likelihood that forced migrations and substantial changes in land use due to climate change, really test the boundaries of international response and intervention. I wonder if humankind becomes best served (ethically speaking) to make more use of the channels of globalization that are already open. What I mean is, if the privileged societies (i.e. ours) were to become more localized, energy-conservative communities, would it hinder their chances of becoming a more globally altruistic society? Historically and geographically speaking, some communities will have more renewable energy resources, some will be able to use it more effectively, some won’t be able to protect it and some will have too many other factors to develop it. How will those communities that are better off be able to help communities in need? What relationship does energy transportation have to international development in the climate change era?
brandond 7:35 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think you raise lots of interesting questions, and hint at what geopolitics may look like in the future. Author Jeremy Rifkin has some thoughts on the questions you raised, which I think I highlighted earlier the course. He argues that renewable energies are more equally distributed around the world than the ever-decreasing non-renewable energies. This means, according to his analysis, that every region of the world may possess the power, both figurative and literal, its needs to be relatively self-sufficient and sustainable in its lifestyle, while still engaging in continental and limited global trade. In such a revolution, geopolitics would shift from being a battleground to secure fossil fuel and uranium energy resources to biospheric politics that are based around the stewardship of the larger communities and ecosystems of which we are a part. This sounds nice, but may a little too Utopian? What do you think?
nytsuen 6:07 pm on March 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As long as oil is still the main fuel, U.S. will be in control. Even though it may seem like U.S. is running out of oil (which they are) and are trying to secure oil through military conquests in the Middle East, their dominance is still widespread. Their military ability to station in middle east and continue to obtain oil is important. Obviously, there comes a point where other nations will grow and U.S.’s need for more oil in order to sustain the Americans will dry out. However, it seems like everyone’s on the same boat. According to Manning, everything is dependent on some form of oil because it provides the best form of energy. If new forms of energy are not powerful enough to fuel everything in the world and can’t be stored or transferred, then like everyone had mentioned, it depends on energy that can be formed from the local region. Instead of having one region provide all the energy, what if every region was only responsible for supplying their own energy. Also, it is working backwards but is it possible to go back to the times when we weren’t relying on oil? How about manual labor? Would China be able to prosper by employing its people to perform manufacturing work instead of automated machines?
sharonshi 2:28 pm on March 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I too believe that China will become the next to turn new energy sources into global power. Presently, China has an enormous population that seemingly has no end to it’s growth. Such a large population can infer many things, but the two I will focus on is consumption and production. A large population also implies a large workforce. With a large workforce, the country can employ it’s workers and produce at an alarming rate. Moreover, the large number of people will start to demand a large number of things. This, along with the big workforce will propel the country to produce more, and in that utilize more energy.
Another thought that came to mind is the level of innovation that could occur as a result of a larger pool of human capital. China’s large population implies a large workforce, and in that a larger source of human capital. With more minds at work, and the never-ending depletion of resources, China will have to come up with new and innovative ways to use energy. This source of innovation could very well be the push that turns energy sources into global power.
paige 10:25 pm on March 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with this. I think energy harnessing and power go hand in hand. It is hard to say who might be the next super power, because we are still so stuck on oil. I think there needs to be drastic reinvention before anything definitive can be said. I think it would be quite predictable if the United States remained incredibly powerful, but using a different energy source than oil. At this point they make enough money from oil to invest in research to stay on top. As others have mentioned, China is also developing into quite the recognizable power.
Joyce Lin 9:36 pm on March 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think there is truth in that relationship because if you can produce energy yourself, you have the power for internal/national activities as well as the power to influence markets outside the nation/externally. I am confident China will be a leader in new sources of energy in the future. We talk about China being a big polluter and its many possible environmental consequences in the future here but we must be rest assured, those in China also realize this. The Chinese people know what’s at stake themselves and that they have to develop clean energy now so that the country’s 1.3 billion (and growing) population can start living more sustainably. At the same time, I think most of the world’s countries with big powers today will retain their global powers because those are the countries who have the money to invest in new ways of harnessing energy.
sampethick 2:42 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that energy and global power definitely come hand in hand. Just take a look at the way the world functions right now; industrialization and growth is one of the world’s top priorities, both of which require a lot of energy and a lot of money. The more of these two things each country has the more growth it can achieve and in turn more power and wealth. Ideally, the next who or what that will turn energy sources into global power are those who are going to find a way to harness energy that is ecologically friendly and one that everyone has access too. This way the world will be able to live off of energy sources that don’t harm our environment anymore but also allows us to continue to expand economically.
sampethick 3:25 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This is a great idea too!
http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/eco-dance-floor.html
Energy generating dance floor in a night club. The pressure from the pounding of the feet of the dancers generating energy. And along with that they’ve implemented a rule that people who can prove that they got to the club by foot bike or public transport get in for free! So maybe Europe has to key to turning energy sources into global power…
jaydee 3:47 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That is a genius idea! There are a lot of amazing technologies being developed around energy efficiency these days. Here is an article I read a while ago that I also found really interesting: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds
jaydee 3:41 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would definitely agree with this. Power is about control over others, and in this age, control of other people is gained through control over their needs. Unfortunately, I doubt this will change any time soon. This topic brings to mind an article I read recently:( http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122231-solar-panels-made-with-ion-cannon-are-cheap-enough-to-challenge-fossil-fuels ). As you can see from the article, scientific discoveries are leading to numerous breakthroughs in alternative energy sources. However, I wonder if these energy sources will ever really be able to catch on, because the use of a ubiquitous, uncontrollable power source (such as solar or wind) will lead to a loss of power for those that held it previously. I’m aware that some control can be exhibited by regulating the price to acquire the materials and build the equipment necessary for harnessing it, as has been the case for these energy sources already, but what will happen to the energy power balance when a source of energy is introduced that is easily affordable and the supply is nearly limitless compared to the demand? Will the price to use this power increase to the point where these eco-friendly sources become unfeasibly expensive for less developed countries, much like they are today, in order to maintain control? I can’t really see the “oil rich” countries allowing the global market to shift to these other sources until the well has run dry.
lcoulthard 7:27 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that Vaclav Smil is correct in saying that consumption and harnessing energy leads to global power. It is definitely a trend that other nations have shown in the past. We can see that China is becoming increasingly before powerful, and it is also constantly opening new coal plants and taking on projects like their mega dam. On the other hand, as mentioned, the Cold War shows that the USA wwasn’t completely dominant during the 20th century. The oil shock is another example of the USA not being in complete control, but it also shows how the power that they did possess at that time was dependent upon mass energy consumption (and it still is today!)
brenden 8:27 pm on March 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that Smil’s is correct that consumption and ability to harness energy has an impact on a country’s economic and military dominance. I don’t however see the emergence of a new global leader based on the harnessing of a new type of energy resource any time in the near future. I think that country’s which exercise economic dominance and military dominance will thrive on exploitation of the environment through an exhaustion of the current non renewable energy resources. For example, China is the perfect model of a country that is emerging as a global economic and military super power. China also is one of the world’s largest consumers of coal which they burn for energy in many parts of the country. China also heavily relies on petroleum, diesel fuels. The United states also still relies heavily on these old non renewable resources as primary sources of energy and as President Obama mentioned in his most recent state of the union, the country is now producing more oil then it has at any point in the past 30 years. I predict that these countries economic and military domination will continue and they will continue to rely upon these outdated, environmentally harmful technologies until they are extinct and the countries are forced to move to new technologies out of necessity, not by choice.
erikaw 10:58 am on March 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There are many factors to take into consideration with energy and power. As mentioned oil is a huge commodity in present energy consumption, so it would make sense that countries with large amounts of oil would gain more power (ex. Middle East). That being said because other countries (namely the USA) have more financial and political pull they have gained access to that energy power. There are areas of the Middle East which are growing rampantly (ex. UAE). China and India have the advantage of large populations and we are already starting to see their growth, both financially and politically. As new areas of energy are worked on and discovered (many of which have been talked about in this course) we will see growth in the countries that are focussing on research and implementation of renewable energy. In time, there will likely be a decline in the USA’s power and influence as other countries take lead in greener cleaner energy.
hoskinso 11:23 pm on March 18, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with Vaclav Smil’s assessment of the source of the United States’ power in the 20th century. Cheap energy, and the technology to harness it effectively, are the drivers of a strong economy and enable a society to grow and dominate those around it.
The most important part of the above statement is the “cheap” part. Fossil fuels represent a concentrated store of solar energy which is unparalleled in its energy density and portability. Only a small amount of energy input is needed to drill wells and tap into this incredible resource. The unique gift of fossil fuels contrast greatly with other emerging sources of energy such as wind and solar. Wind and solar installations are expensive and provide only intermittent power. The electrical energy produced cannot be easily stored. Barring unforeseen advancements in technology, I don’t believe wind and solar energy will be a source of geopolitical power to the same degree as fossil fuels have in the 20th and 21st centuries.
yitailiu 5:06 pm on March 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree that there is a strong correspondence between the ability to harness energy and to wield global power because energy is a necessity to power the industries and boost the economy. Since that the global energy demand is rapidly increasing, the ones that have more access to the energy sources would rise as superpowers. Presently, oil and coal are the major energy contributors, and they will most likely to continue to dominate in the near future. Theses nonrenewable resources would run out eventually, and the alternative energy sources will need to be considered. As of all the alternative renewable energy sources explored so far, hydro power seems to be a possible major energy source that will meet the future energy demands since its efficiency is well above biomass, solar, or wind energy.
Keaton Briscoe 10:30 pm on March 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that oil is a very strong commodity and will continue to become a strong commodity in the future. Like it has been said above, I think that those who have to easiest and the most access to the oil will probably have the most power, and fortunately, I think Canada will be one of those (oil sands).
eddietastic 7:12 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that the current power is in the middle east and countries which have a huge amount of the natural resource which the world relies on the most which is gas. However, i believe that in the next couple of years there will be enough advancements for energy sources such as the sun or the wind which will result in most countries being able to sustain themselves instead of being reliant on the countries which have non renewable natural resources
midara 10:27 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Considering that even food production needs oil in production and harvesting, there is no doubt that controlling energy sources will gradually be able to hold in global power. Petroleum, natural gases nowadays are some examples of non-renewable energy sources that make middle east nations undoubtfully powerful and rich internal wise. Therefore I think Smil’s quote is very true.
I guess the next to turn new energy sources into global power is very unpredictable. Before I might guess nuclear power maybe another “clean” energy source that one may consider, but the 311 earthquake/tsunami incident definitely has a great influence on the liability of nuclear power. By far, I think bio-energy may be another good energy source if the problem of smaller-scale energy generation is solved. That is, if any country is able to solve the problem and hold the technology, the country for sure is able to turn the “new” energy sources into global power.
congo96 7:09 pm on April 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree that whoever could obtain the most energy for themselves also acquired the most power however its much easier to observe and comment on the phenomenon in hindsight than it is to predict the future. Who will hold the power in years to come? In order to predict that one would have to answer the question of what the next energy source is going to be. How long is our world going to depend on fossil fuels and if an alternative is found where will it come from? There is a lot of conflict in the middle east right now in part because of the fossil fuels present there. Surely countries like the US have taken note of that and have made it their business to be involved in the politics of these regions.. Beyond that who knows?