You are on page 1of 38

Preprint LDC-2009-002, Rev.

1 1/8/2010

A SIMPLE POPULATION DYNAMICS MODEL WITH RESOURCE LIMITS

Lawrence D. Cloutman adastera47@yahoo.com

Abstract The commonly used logistic model of population dynamics predicts a monotonic population rise up to the carrying capacity and a constant population thereafter. We modify the logistic model to include a simple model to account for the resources necessary to support the population. The resources are modeled by a lumped “energy” variable that represents a combination of renewable and nonrenewable resources. The resulting third order Lotka-Volterra equations are solved numerically for a variety of conditions. Populations that are too dependent on nonrenewable resources collapse and never fully recover, leveling off at a nearly constant level determined by the availability of renewable resources.

c 2010 by Lawrence D. Cloutman. All rights reserved. 1

1

Introduction

The commonly used logistic model of population dynamics predicts a monotonic population rise up to the carrying capacity and a constant population thereafter. The factor that limits the population is not specified, but often is attributed to some variation on the themes of famine, pandemic, predation, and warfare. This lack of specificity of the mechanism for population limitation is reflected in the simplistic ad hoc nonlinear term in the logistic equation. To make the logistic model more realistic, we modify it to include a simple model for a finite resource necessary to support the population. This is accomplished by introducing an energy variable with renewable and nonrenewable components. This variable is a surrogate for such disparate items as food, water, and fossil fuels. The resulting third order Lotka-Volterra equations are solved numerically for a selected set of conditions. The next section presents the logistic equation. Section 3 describes the extension of the logistic model to include an energy variable. Section 4 contains numerical examples. Section 5 contains the conclusions. The appendix explores the connection between numerical instabilities in finite difference approximations to the logistic equation and chaos in iterated maps.

2

2

The Logistic Equation

The logistic equation is the basis of a crude but popular and useful model of population dynamics [1]. If N is the population, then the logistic equation is dN K−N , = AN − BN 2 = AN dt K (1)

where K = A/B is the carrying capacity of the environment. The first term on the right hand side represents the familiar exponential growth of the population via a constant difference between birth and mortality rates. The nonlinear term is a simple ad hoc representation of an increase in mortality or decrease in fertility due to crowding. The logistic equation has a simple general solution. Solutions to this equation contain two free parameters, but these solutions may all be expressed in terms of a self-similar solution with no parameters. Let us make the linear changes of variables N = N/K and τ = At + t0 , where t0 is a constant adjusted to make τ = 0 at the start of the problem. Then equation (1) becomes dN = N − N 2. (2) dτ We assume that the value of N (0) is given. Equation (2) is easily solved by separation of variables: N (0) . (3) N (τ ) = N (0) + [1 − N (0)] exp(−τ ) There are two equilibrium solutions, N = 0 and N = 1. The equilibrium solution N (τ ) = 1 is stable. If the solution is perturbed such that N (τ ) > 1, the solution decays monotonically to unity. If the equilibrium is perturbed by decreasing the population, N grows monotonically back to unity. The equilibrium solution N = 0 is unstable. For a positive perturbation (that is, the creation of a new species), the solution follows equation (3) to unity as τ increases. For a negative perturbation, the formal solution diverges to −∞ in a finite time. A negative perturbation is not realizable physically. The ecologically interesting case is 0 < N (0) < 1. In this case, the solution rises monotonically to unity at late times. The solution does not overshoot the carrying capacity. The nature of the solution is independent of the parameters A and B. These parameters determine the carrying capacity and the time scale for population growth, but not the shape of the curve of N versus t. We note that populations obeying equation (1) do not exhibit chaos. Ordinary differential equations that are local in the independent variable and have no external forcing terms must be of at least third order to have chaotic solutions.

3

3

A Simple Resource Model

The simplistic logistic model easily can be made more realistic by including effects found in real ecosystems. One key effect is the dependence of the population upon certain resources, which can be either renewable or nonrenewable. We choose to express this resource in terms of an energy variable, E(t). This lumped variable will include everything necessary to maintain the population at its chosen rate of consumption, including food, fuels, and goods of all kinds. E is available for immediate use, or it may be stockpiled for future use. 1 It includes only forms of “energy” available for use upon demand. We assume E ≥ 0 obeys the differential equation dE = MNH(C) + S0 + S1 N − UN, (4) dt where M, S0 , S1 , and U are constants. The variable C(t) represents some nonrenewable source of E (such as coal, other fossil fuels, or underground irrigation water) that requires mining, pumping, or some other kind of processing to be converted into E. We assume that the variable C obeys the differential equation dC = −MNH(C). (5) dt This equation represents the conversion of the resource C into available energy E, so the negative of the right-hand side of equation (5) appears as a source of E in equation (4). The function H(C) ≥ 0 is introduced to represent the fact that once the nonrenewable resource C is depleted, it is no longer available as an energy source and never will be again. It should have the properties that at t = 0, H(C) = 1, and that for C = 0, H(C) = 0. While the precise form of this function is not known in general, it should have the additional property that for large values of C, its value should be near unity to represent the relative ease of converting C into E. As C is depleted, production becomes more difficult or expensive, and H(C) should decrease. The ad hoc assumption that we shall use in this study is H(C) = [C(t)/C(0)]ω =0 if C > 0 if C ≤ 0, (6)

where ω is a nonnegative constant. We shall consider the cases with ω = 0, 0.25, and 1 in this study. The first case reduces to the Heaviside function, which is a step function that switches between zero and unity at C = 0. This would be appropriate for a resource, such as grain in a bin, that is easy to extract down to the last grain. However, some resources,
While this model is sufficiently general to apply to many species, our discussion, and therefore the language used, will be slanted toward human population dynamics.
1

4

such as petroleum, become harder to access as the wells are depleted. For such resources, a more realistic case would be ω ≈ 0.25, which would drop off slowly at first, then drop precipitously as depletion of C is approached. This resource model contains four new constants. The constant M is the average per capita rate at which C is converted into E. This represents mining or some other kind of processing of the nonrenewable resource C to make it available for use. The final term in equation (4) represents the use of energy by the population, so U is the energy use rate per capita. We shall assume that U is a constant. Renewable resources are described by the constants S0 and S1 . All renewable resources, whether biomass, hydroelectric storage, solar power, wind power, or whatever, ultimately derive their energy from the sun, which we will take to be unchanging on the time scales of interest. The constant S0 will account for energy accumulation by a fixed infrastructure regardless of the level of population. For example, the rate of recharge of hydroelectric storage in a particular reservoir is independent of how many people there are to tap into it. The other constant, S1 , will account for renewable energy storage that requires labor to manufacture, such as farm output, and is therefore population-dependent. The gross simplification made in this model is to treat water, food, fuels, and goods on an equal footing in a single variable. Finally we must couple the energy model into the logistic equation. This will require additional parameters. First, define α such that αU is the minimum energy use rate that will support life. Normally, 0 < α ≤ 1 for a viable population. Next, we redefine A, which is the difference between the birth and death rates. Let β = E − αUN (7)

be the currently available energy minus the energy needed to sustain the population at a subsistence level. Then A= A+ Φ(β) −A− Φ(β) if β ≥ 0 if β < 0 (feast) (famine), (8)

where A+ and A− are positive constants. The simplest assumption, and the one used in this study, is Φ(β) = 1. 2 This definition has the property that the death rate will exceed the birth rate if the energy required to sustain the population is less than the current requirements for all individuals to just sustain life.
A better model might allow for A to begin dropping off for small positive values of β and for the death rate to saturate at the starvation rate A− if β << 0. This could be done by specifying a smooth function for 2 Φ(β) that is zero at β = 0 and goes to unity for large values of |β|. An example is Φ(β) = [1−exp(−β 2 /β0 )], where β0 is another model constant. Although this procedure is strictly ad hoc, it does provide a continuous transition between feast and famine.
2

5

The combined population/resource model is equations (1) plus (4) through (8). The model comprises three first-order differential equations, nine constants, and initial values for N, C, and E.

Table 1. Constants for Numerical Examples Constant A+ A− B M S0 S1 α U ω C(0) E(0) N(0) Cases 1-3 0.03 0.06 3.0 × 10−12 0.6 1.0 × 108 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.0, 0.25, 1.0 1.0 × 1011 1.2 × 106 1.0 × 106 Case 4 0.03 0.06 3.0 × 10−12 0.6 1.0 × 108 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.25 2.0 × 1011 2.4 × 106 1.0 × 106 Case 5 0.03 0.06 3.0 × 10−12 0.6 3.0 × 108 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.25 2.0 × 1011 2.4 × 106 1.0 × 106 Case 6 0.03 0.06 3.0 × 10−12 0.6 3.0 × 108 0.5 0.35 1.0 0.25 2.0 × 1011 2.4 × 106 1.0 × 106 Case 7 0.03 0.02 3.0 × 10−12 0.6 3.0 × 108 0.5 0.35 1.0 0.25 2.0 × 1011 2.4 × 106 1.0 × 106 Case 8 0.03 0.02 3.0 × 10−12 0.1 3.0 × 108 0.5 0.35 1.0 0.25 2.0 × 1011 2.4 × 106 1.0 × 106

6

4

Examples

The model equations are nonlinear and must be solved numerically. The numerical integrations were performed with a standard second-order Runge-Kutta technique discussed in the appendix. We shall consider several cases whose parameter values are listed in table 1. The first three cases differ only in the value of ω. Historically, human populations have increased around 3 percent per year, so we take A+ = 0.03. We know the logistic carrying capacity is greater than 6 × 109 , so let’s take it to be K = 1.0 × 1010 . That fixes B = 3.0 × 10−12 . We shall assume our population lives a reasonable but modest lifestyle, with α = 0.7, and we shall assume U = 1.0 energy units per capita per year. 3 We assume the resource parameters M = 0.6 energy units per capita per year, S0 = 1.0 × 108 energy units per year, and S1 = 0.5 energy units per capita per year. Initial conditions are N(0) = 1.0 × 106 , E(0) = 1.2 × 106 energy units, and C(0) = 1.0 × 1011 energy units. Figure 1 shows the population as a function of time for case 1, the model with ω = 1. Figure 2 shows E(t), and figure 3 shows C(t). For the first 300 years, population and energy supplies grow exponentially, as does the depletion rate of C. Finally, C is depleted and E drops as renewable resources cannot supply enough to sustain the population. The population crashes to a level that can be sustained by renewable resources. Note that the population never reaches the logistic carrying capacity. Even though this population model appears to be a third order system of equations, it cannot have chaotic solutions. The variable C decays monotonically to zero and stays there. Therefore, the solution vector (N, E, C) will have orbits only in the two-dimensional C = 0 plane at late times. This collapse of the solution space to two dimensions effectively reduces the system of equations to second order. Figures 4 through 6 show the analogous plots for case 2, ω = 1. Figures 7 through 9 show the analogous plots for case 3, ω = 0.25. There is very little difference among the first three cases, implying an insensitivity to the exact form of H(C). The only qualitative difference is that C(t) is not completely depleted before the population crash in case 2. Case 4 is the same as case 3 except E(0) and C(0) were doubled to increase the energy stores available to the population. This delayed the population crash by only about 50 years, but did not change the final sustainable population of about 200 million. Case 5 is the same as case 4 except S0 was tripled. This change delays the crash for about 20 more years, so the population has time to grow further up the logistic curve. It
This choice for U defines the unit of energy. It is left up to the reader to specify the average number of joules or BTUs or other conventional energy units each person uses in one year, which is the conversion factor between my arbitrary “energy units” and conventional physical units.
3

7

also increases the sustainable population by a factor of three. This behavior is exactly what one would expect, that a population that has exhausted some critical nonrenewable resource will be dependent upon how much renewable resource can be made available. In case 6, α was reduced to 0.35. This represents a dramatic decrease in the amount of energy used to just sustain life, which would be reflected in a decreased standard of living. Surprisingly, the results in cases 5 and 6 are nearly identical. Case 7 is the same as case 6 except A− is reduced by a factor of one third. This represents a lower death rate during times of famine. The difference between the two cases is that the population crash occurs over a period of a century rather than about 40 years. Case 8 is the same as case 7 except M has been reduced to 0.1. M may be interpreted as the product of two factors. The first is the average rate at which one person can convert C into E working full time. The second is the fraction of the population (in full-time equivalents) engaged in that conversion activity. For example, these factors are how much coal is mined by one miner and the fraction of people who are coal miners. Remember, however, that quantities such as M, E, and C represent a sum over all resources, not just coal. The results for case 8 are shown in figures 22 through 24. Comparing figures 19 and 22, we see that lowering M lowered the peak value of the population due to the reduced production by conversion of C. Also, the crash occurs much earlier in time. Interestingly, the post-crash population is slightly higher in figure 22. In figure 23 the peak value of E is half that in figure 20. As in the other seven cases, E goes to essentially zero after the crash. The surviving population is forced to rely on renewables and any residual conversion production with little or no reserves of E. The model assumes a constant rate of renewal of renewables. However, the population is now vulnerable to further crashes due to interruption of production of renewables by factors not included in the model, such as bad weather. Figure 24 shows that instead of depleting C, only about a fourth of it is used in the entire 500 years of the simulation. Figure 6 for case 2 is the only other plot of C that shows a nonzero residual of C after the crash. In all cases, the population lives hand-to-mouth on renewables and any residual C. It is this large residual that accounts for the slight elevation of the post-crash population in case 8. In the context of the model, the key to avoiding a major population crash seems to be the development of enough renewable resources to support some desired maximum population well before the population reaches that value. However, that will work only if the population does not use nonrenewables to allow overshooting the renewable carrying capacity. Rerunning case 8 with M = 0 showed no significant change, so not relying heavily

8

on stockpiles of E while the population is below the renewables carrying capacity is crucial. Case 8 was rerun with M and S0 both reduced by a factor of 104 . The population started at 106 and monotonically decreased to a stable value of about 6 × 104 . Increasing S1 to 2.0 along with the reduced values of M and S0 allowed the population to saturate near the logistic carrying capacity. With S1 = 1, the population grew slowly and monotonically to 54 million over the 500 year span of the simulation, and it was still growing slowly due to the slow accumulation of E. So, it is possible to avoid big population crashes by tuning the parameters, but the price is to limit the growth of the population by limiting the use of nonrenewables.

9

5

Conclusions

We have developed a simple extension of the logistic model of population dynamics that includes the impact of finite renewable and nonrenewable resources. The results of numerical experiments with this model may be summarized by the following conclusions. 1. A population that lives beyond its sustainable means will eventually crash when resources are no longer available. This crash is a robust feature of the model. 2. The post-crash population stabilizes at a sustainable level determined by the availability of renewable resources and conversion of any residual nonrenewables. 3. Regrowth of a depleted population is contingent upon creation of adequate renewable resources. 4. The character of the solutions seems surprisingly insensitive to the parameter values, most surprisingly to the value of α. An obvious question is whether this model has any applicability to human population dynamics. The model is simplistic in many ways, and computer models are not reality. The model concentrates on approximating physical limits in terms of the flow of energy and ignores many political and social factors. Furthermore, the present study has not thoroughly explored the model’s parameter space. However, we seem to be moving inexorably into a situation in which key resources are increasingly strained. These include petroleum, topsoil, underground irrigation water, and a number of ocean fisheries. This development is sufficiently worrying that it would be prudent to support further research into more detailed and realistic models that may be used for insight and input into scientifically-based management of ecological issues. There are other resources that touch on the applicability question. One is an article on critical aspects of continued growth as it impacts finite resources by Bartlett [9] While the numbers he uses are somewhat dated, and while some of his most dire scenarios have not come to pass, it would be a huge mistake to ignore his message about the implications of continued population growth. A second resource is the abundant material written about the history and ecology of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). While many of the details are either unknown or controversial, the ecological collapse on Rapa Nui is another lesson that should be neither ignored nor twisted to fit any particular political, religious, academic, or moral agenda. If such events have lessons for us, they must be uncovered in the light of fieldwork coupled with critical analysis and reason rather than with wishful thinking or kneejerk emotionalism. A reasonable starting place to get a broad overview of the issues is the Wikipedia article on-line. 10

A

Instability and Chaos in Finite Difference Equations

Due to the nonlinearities in the differential equations, numerical methods must be used to find approximate solutions. This introduces the issue of numerical stability of the methods used. The stability of finite difference approximations to linear differential equations has been well studied. In the case of nonlinear differential equations, they are sometimes linearized and a stability analysis performed on the linearized equations [2]. Then one assumes the results apply as well to the full nonlinear system. However, the stability conditions so derived are only a necessary condition for numerical instability. In this section, we show that the nonlinearities introduce additional considerations into the stability question. The simplest explicit finite difference approximation to equation (2) is Nj+1 − Nj = Nj − Nj2 , δτ consistent. This equation may be rearranged to obtain Nj+1 = (1 + δτ )Nj − δτ Nj2 . If we apply the linear transformation Mj = Nj δτ /(1 + δτ ), we obtain Mj+1 = (1 + δτ ) Mj − M2 ≡ A Mj − M2 . j j (11) (10) (9)

where δτ is the dimensionless time step. It is easy to show that this approximation is

This equation is just the familiar one-parameter logistic map with the parameter value A = (1 + δτ ). Note that M has the value δτ /(1 + δτ ) for the nontrivial equilibrium solution N = 1, which is the same as the stable equilibrium solution of the logistic map, (A − 1)/A, for 1 < A < 3. The behavior of this map for various values of A has been thoroughly studied [3]. Assume we begin the iterations with 0 < M0 < 1. 1. For A less than unity, the map converges to zero monotonically. 2. For A between unity and two, the solution converges monotonically to Nj = 1. This corresponds to δτ < 1, which is the stability condition for the explicit method (9) to produce a monotonically increasing solution. 3. For A between two and three, Nj overshoots unity, then converges to unity, oscillating about it on alternate cycles. 4. For A between 3 and 3.44, the solution eventually settles into a limit cycle with period 2. 11

5. For A between 3.44 and 3.57, the solution undergoes a sequence of period doublings. 6. For A between 3.57 and 4, the solution is chaotic. 7. For A greater than 4, the solution diverges to −∞. Since the numerical integrations use A > 1, item 1 is never encountered in practice. Item 2 corresponds to the numerically stable situation which has the qualitatively correct behavior of increasing monotonically with increasing j and therefore t. Linear stability theory considers just two cases. The behavior is described by item 2 (stable) or item 7 (unstable, with the numerical solution becoming unbounded). It is the presence of the nonlinearity that introduces the complexities of items 3 through 6. This rich set of behaviors, in the context of solving the differential equation, is unphysical even though the numerical solutions are bounded and therefore will not cause the integration computer program to “crash” with an overflow or NaN. This situation is a warning that studies based on numerical integrations must always include grid refinement studies to insure the results converge to the solutions of the underlying differential equations. That has been done in the present study, and only the results using the smallest δτ ( ≤ 0.03) are presented. The chaotic behavior is not confined to the explicit one-step difference equation (10). Consider two second-order, two-step Runge-Kutta integration methods, N∗ − Nj = δτ 2 Nj − Nj2 (12) (13)

2 Nj+1 − Nj = δτ N∗ − N∗

and N∗ − Nj = δτ Nj+1 − Nj = Nj − Nj2 (14) δτ 2 Nj − Nj2 + N∗ − N∗ . (15) 2 The first method is based on the mid-point rule, and the second is based on the trapezoidal rule. The results presented in this paper were computed with the second method. Both methods have significant (< 32 percent) truncation errors for δτ = 1.05. Solutions from both methods are well-behaved (smooth and monotonic), and the mid-point rule, equations (14)-(15), is slightly more accurate. However, both methods monotonically approach the wrong steady state values (0.9756098 and 0.8780488) for δτ = 2.05. For δτ = 3.05, the mid-point rule overshoots the equilibrium solution 0.6557377 and approaches it with damped oscillations. The trapezoidal rule, on the other hand, goes into a period-4 limit cycle. At δτ = 4.05, both methods produce solutions that diverge to minus infinity. These kinds of behavior have been reported elsewhere [4]- [7] for more complex numerical methods. 12

Often partially implicit methods are used in practice, and there are numerous ways the logistic equation can be approximated. Each particular difference approximation has its own behavior, but typically there are a region of stability for small time steps, then oscillatory and periodic solutions, chaotic solutions, and eventually solutions that become unbounded. One of the most interesting partially implicit methods is Nj+1 − Nj = Nj+1 − Nj2 . δτ (16)

For time steps less than 0.5, it is stable and the solution is monotonic. Since the explicit method has well-behaved solutions out to a time step of unity, this shows that implicitness does not always improve the size of the time step that one can use. Above a time step of 0.5, equation (16) has a rich and complex set of behaviors [8]. We will not go through the entire list, but will note that there is some remarkable behavior for δτ between 0.74 and 0.76. At 0.74, the solution reaches a period-6 limit cycle that is almost-periodic with period 3. At 0.75, the solution is chaotic, and at 0.76 it becomes unbounded. The range of time step that produces chaotic solutions is quite narrow. For still larger time steps, other types of behavior can occur, including oscillations about zero.

13

References
[1] D. G. Cloutman and L. D. Cloutman, “A Unified Mathematical Framework for Population Dynamics Modelling,” Ecol. Modelling 71 (1993) 131-160. [2] R. D. Richtmyer, Difference Methods for Initial-Value Problems, Interscience Publishers, NY, 1957. [3] R. M. May, “Simple Mathematical Models With Very Complicated Dynamics,” Nature 261 (1976) 459-467. [4] H. C. Yee, P. K. Sweby, and D. F. Griffiths, “Dynamical Approach Study of Spurious Steady-State Numerical Solutions of Nonlinear Differential Equations. I. The Dynamics of Time Discretization and Its Implications for Algorithm Development in Computational Fluid Dynamics,” J. Comput. Phys. 97, 249-310 (1991). [5] H. C. Yee and P. K. Sweby, “The Dynamics of Some Iterative Implicit Schemes,” in Chaotic Numerics, Contemporary Mathematics 172, (P. E. Kloeden and K. J. Palmer, Eds.), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1994, pp. 75-96. [6] H. C. Yee, J. R. Torczynski, S. A. Morton, M. R. Visbal, and P. K. Sweby, “On Spurious Behavior of CFD Simulations,” AIAA Paper 97-1869 (1997). [7] H. C. Yee and P. K. Sweby, “Aspects of Numerical Uncertainties in Time Marching to Steady-State Numerical Solutions,” AIAA J. 36 (1998) 712-724. [8] L. D. Cloutman, “A Note on the Stability and Accuracy of Finite Difference Approximations to Differential Equations,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report UCRL-ID-125549, 1996. [9] A. A. Bartlett, “Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis,” Am. J. Phys. 46, 876 (1978).

14

Population 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 1: Population as a function of time for the base case with ω = 0. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

15

Energy 5e+010 4.5e+010 4e+010 3.5e+010 3e+010 2.5e+010 2e+010 1.5e+010 1e+010 5e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 E

Figure 2: Available energy as a function of time for the base case with ω = 0.

16

Coal 1e+011

8e+010

6e+010 C 4e+010 2e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 3: Coal as a function of time for the base case with ω = 0.

17

Population 2 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 4: Population as a function of time for the base case with ω = 1. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

18

Energy 2 3e+010

2.5e+010

2e+010

1.5e+010

E

1e+010

5e+009

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 5: Available energy as a function of time for the base case with ω = 1.

19

Coal 2 1e+011 9e+010 8e+010 7e+010 6e+010 C 5e+010 4e+010 3e+010 2e+010 1e+010 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 6: Coal as a function of time for the base case with ω = 1.

20

Population 3 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 7: Population as a function of time for the base case with ω = 0.25. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

21

Energy 3 3.5e+010

3e+010

2.5e+010

2e+010 E 1.5e+010

1e+010

5e+009

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 8: Available energy as a function of time for the base case with ω = 0.25.

22

Coal 3 1e+011

8e+010

6e+010 C 4e+010 2e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 9: Coal as a function of time for the base case with ω = 0.25.

23

Population 4 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 10: Population as a function of time for case 4, doubled initial energy reserves. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

24

Energy 4 4.5e+010 4e+010 3.5e+010 3e+010 2.5e+010 E 2e+010 1.5e+010 1e+010 5e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 11: Available energy as a function of time for case 4.

25

Coal 4 2e+011

1.5e+011

1e+011

C

5e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 12: Coal as a function of time for case 4.

26

Population 5 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 13: Population as a function of time for case 5, tripled the rate of recharge of renewable energy. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

27

Energy 5 1.2e+011

1e+011

8e+010

6e+010

E

4e+010

2e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 14: Available energy as a function of time for case 5.

28

Coal 5 2e+011

1.5e+011

1e+011

C

5e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 15: Coal as a function of time for case 5.

29

Population 6 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 16: Population as a function of time for case 6, which lowered the standard of living parameter α from 0.7 to 0.35. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

30

Energy 6 1.2e+011

1e+011

8e+010

6e+010

E

4e+010

2e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 17: Available energy as a function of time for case 6.

31

Coal 6 2e+011

1.5e+011

1e+011

C

5e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 18: Coal as a function of time for case 6.

32

Population 7 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 19: Population as a function of time for case 7, which lowered the “famine death rate” parameter A− from 0.06 to 0.02. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

33

Energy 7 1.2e+011

1e+011

8e+010

6e+010

E

4e+010

2e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 20: Available energy as a function of time for case 7.

34

Coal 7 2e+011

1.5e+011

1e+011

C

5e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 21: Coal as a function of time for case 7.

35

Population 8 1e+010 9e+009 8e+009 7e+009 6e+009 5e+009 4e+009 3e+009 2e+009 1e+009 0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500 N With E, C Logistic

Figure 22: Population as a function of time for case 8, which lowered the energy conversion rate parameter M from 0.6 to 0.1. The solution of the logistic equation is shown for comparison.

36

Energy 8 6e+010

5e+010

4e+010

3e+010

E

2e+010

1e+010

0 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 23: Available energy as a function of time for case 8.

37

Coal 8 2e+011 1.95e+011 1.9e+011 1.85e+011 1.8e+011 C 1.75e+011 1.7e+011 1.65e+011 1.6e+011 1.55e+011 0 100 200 t (yr) 300 400 500

Figure 24: Coal as a function of time for case 8.

38