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 nec-
essary 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.

2010
c 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 , (1)
dt K
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)
N (τ ) = . (3)
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 dif-
ferential 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 nonre-
newable 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 if C > 0

=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,
1
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.

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 re-
sources, whether biomass, hydroelectric storage, solar power, wind power, or whatever, ul-
timately 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 infrastruc-
ture 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 sim-
plification 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+ Φ(β) if β ≥ 0 (feast)
A= (8)
−A− Φ(β) if β < 0 (famine),

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.
2
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
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 /β02 )],
where β0 is another model constant. Although this procedure is strictly ad hoc, it does provide a continuous
transition between feast and famine.

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 Cases 1-3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

A+ 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
A− 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02
B 3.0 × 10−12 3.0 × 10−12 3.0 × 10−12 3.0 × 10−12 3.0 × 10−12 3.0 × 10−12
M 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1
S0 1.0 × 108 1.0 × 108 3.0 × 108 3.0 × 108 3.0 × 108 3.0 × 108
S1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
α 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.35 0.35 0.35
U 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ω 0.0, 0.25, 1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

C(0) 1.0 × 1011 2.0 × 1011 2.0 × 1011 2.0 × 1011 2.0 × 1011 2.0 × 1011
E(0) 1.2 × 106 2.4 × 106 2.4 × 106 2.4 × 106 2.4 × 106 2.4 × 106
N(0) 1.0 × 106 1.0 × 106 1.0 × 106 1.0 × 106 1.0 × 106 1.0 × 106

6
4 Examples
The model equations are nonlinear and must be solved numerically. The numerical integra-
tions 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
3
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.

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 re-
sources 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 availabil-

ity 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 ig-
nores 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 suffi-
ciently 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 , (9)
δτ
where δτ is the dimensionless time step. It is easy to show that this approximation is
consistent. This equation may be rearranged to obtain

Nj+1 = (1 + δτ )Nj − δτ Nj2 . (10)

If we apply the linear transformation Mj = Nj δτ /(1 + δτ ), we obtain

   
Mj+1 = (1 + δτ ) Mj − M2j ≡ A Mj − M2j . (11)

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,
δτ  
N∗ − Nj = Nj − Nj2 (12)
2
 
Nj+1 − Nj = δτ N∗ − N∗2 (13)
and
 
N∗ − Nj = δτ Nj − Nj2 (14)
δτ h i
Nj+1 − Nj = Nj − Nj2 + N∗ − N∗2 . (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. So-
lutions 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 . (16)
δτ
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 Popu-
lation 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 Computa-
tional 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 Approx-
imations 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
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
E

2e+010

1.5e+010

1e+010

5e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

17
 Population 2
1e+010
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

20
 Population 3
1e+010
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

23
 Population 4
1e+010
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

26
 Population 5
1e+010
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

29
 Population 6
1e+010
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

32
 Population 7
1e+010
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

35
 Population 8
1e+010
With E, C
Logistic
9e+009

8e+009

7e+009

6e+009

5e+009
N

4e+009

3e+009

2e+009

1e+009

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

Figure 22: Population as a function of time for case 8, which lowered the energy conver-
sion 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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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
0 100 200 300 400 500
t (yr)

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

38