Maximum Sustainable Earth Population

[jim hardy]

"Dug" , two posts above, gets it.

I recommend reading "Life's Bottleneck " by Isaac Asimov.

 

[johnbbahm]

To put it in simple terms, we eat oil!
Without the benefits of the high energy density hydrocarbon fuels provide,
many people will starve.
The problem is energy storage, We could make enough photovoltaic panels to
achieve the energy currently used, and much more,
but the energy is not where, when, and in the physical form it needs to be into be utilized.
Storing the energy as hydrocarbons, allows a path forward for humanity,
and buys us time to find other alternatives.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/det...ower-to-gas-facility_100011859/#axzz2uvraLciF
The US Navy and Audi, are developing technology from Fraunhofer University,
to store gathered energy as hydrocarbon fuel.
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
Once stored, the fuel can be distributed as needed through the existing infrastructure.

 

[jim hardy]

Isaac Asimov wrote about 1949:

... Asimov "One billion well-fed, creative human beings arc a far happier and worthwhile load for our good planet than six billion starving, half-mad wretches.

Since then genetic modified crops and a booming phosphate industry have enabled feeding us all.

That Navy article is really something, johnbbalm !

 

[.Scott]

Doing away with the middleman entirely, powering humans directly via sunlight with 100% efficiency then the sustainable limit is ~1.22 quadrillion people.

Post the peer reviewed scientific study that shows that food, clean water, suitable housing, waste control, schooling, jobs, medical care and transportation could be physically and economically viable to sustain that many people.
This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

I must say I'm kind of stunned by this moderator response. Finding upper or lower bounds in a discussion like this, even ridiculous ones, assists in directing the community's investigation.
In this case, the point is that it is "ridiculous" to attempt to address the OP without setting some restrictions on "maximum sustainable population". From an engineering point of view "maximum sustainable population" is not a sufficient statement of the requirements. We have a "dream" of what would be a valuable society and what would be a only a bizarre science experiment. One way of furthering this conversation (and driving it to greater productivity) would be to try to explicitly identify what those requirements might be. Without doing that, it would be difficult to determine whether a particular scientific study even addressed an issue pertinent to the OP.