Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
Tony, the key issue is whether or not mankind can keep increasing its energy inputs over the long term, and you haven't even begun to prove that energy sources are limited. Fission and terrestrial renewable sources (solar, wind, geothermal etc.) don't have any notable limits in the near-term. In the longer term there is the option of harvesting solar power from space. Space power is something that we already use, to power the ISS, communications satellites, science missions etc. So it's clearly possible to tap it. It's just at the stage now that oil was at 150 years ago, in the era of Colonel Drake.
The bottom line is that energy sources are not limited to the earth, so growth beyond the earth is possible. In fact, we have already grown our energy harvesting beyond the earth, albeit on a small scale. To show that we must live within narrow limits, you must show that continued growth of fission, terrestrial renewable and space solar are impossible. You haven't even scratched the surface of that difficult task, so why should anyone agree with you? Especially since you advocate Pol Pot style nutjob policies like encouraging people not to plan for retirement, and children not to have careers.
What you are proposing, essentially, is environmental totalitarianism based on nothing more than your *belief* that expansion of energy sources is impossible. _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
JohnDenver wrote:
Tony, the key issue is whether or not mankind can keep increasing its energy inputs over the long term
Of course it can't. What you and most others hope is that energy inputs can keep increasing in the short term, your lifespan. That could happen, but is not certain.
JohnDenver wrote:
and you haven't even begun to prove that energy sources are limited.
As I've indicated, you and most others assume no limitations. Unless you are granted your wish of huge additional resources from space, the resources on this earth, and the energy reaching this earth, is limited. Do you really require some kind of mathematical proof for that?
JohnDenver wrote:
Fission and terrestrial renewable sources (solar, wind, geothermal etc.) don't have any notable limits in the near-term.
That is your hope. It is not, necessarily, reality. Existing fission capacity may be reasonably secure (with replacements) for a century or two, but I think the world needs to start replacing its fossil fuels soon and fission seems to be the magic wand - so fissionable materials use will increase. Of course, you may claim that there are centuries of fissionable material and that nuclear fission reactors can be made 100% safe, but that is wishful thinking. Renewable energy also requires resources for land and materials, and all so-called renewable energy sources are already fully utilised by the biosphere, so, of course, all of these are limited.
JohnDenver wrote:
In the longer term there is the option of harvesting solar power from space.
No, in the very long term, there may be an option of harvesting solar power from space, with the hope that, if it is ever a real option, that the extra dissipated heat does not do too much damage.
JohnDenver wrote:
The bottom line is that energy sources are not limited to the earth
Right now, to all intents and purposes, you're wrong. But that kind of wishful thinking is an excellent example of not only acting as though resources (for our use) are infinite, but actually believing they are infinite.
JohnDenver wrote:
To show that we must live within narrow limits, you must show that continued growth of fission, terrestrial renewable and space solar are impossible.
Wrong, I only need to point to the fact that we live on a single planet. All else is wishful thinking. You want us to act as though all resources are infinite. That is hardly a sensible strategy. What do you suppose would happen if your dreams turn out to be nothing more than just that?
JohnDenver wrote:
You haven't even scratched the surface of that difficult task, so why should anyone agree with you? Especially since you advocate Pol Pot style nutjob policies like encouraging people not to plan for retirement, and children not to have careers.
Such argument is, frankly, pathetic. As I've said before, you have no imagination. You are stuck in a mind set that requires infinite economic growth. You cannot even begin to imagine a world without that.
JohnDenver wrote:
What you are proposing, essentially, is environmental totalitarianism based on nothing more than your *belief* that expansion of energy sources is impossible.
Endless expansion is impossible. That is not a belief. The belief is all on your side. The belief that earth based energy sources are not limited for a very long time, and without environmental consequences. The belief that once earth's limits do start to bite, an extraterrestrial salvation will come, like some mystical saviour. Beliefs are not a good strategy for the future of our societies and yet you advocate just that.
Fortunately for you, most people act as though economic growth can never hit limits, so you have a very willing and receptive audience out there. Unfortunately, I also live in the same world as the cornucopians and will undoubtedly have to suffer the consequences of their wishful thinking.
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
Guys you know there had to be a peak hay blog around 1800. I am sure it was to topic at many a hay market as the eastern big cities exploded in population.
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
What indications are there that people act as though they believe in infinite growth?
They tend to vote out governments that are in power if growth is slow of negative. They succumb to advertising. They plan for their retirement. They take out large loans. They encourage their kids to have careers.
All of these things can and do happen over short run (lets say centuries) growth but do not indicate people believe in infinite growth, just that they (mistakenly sometimes) believe in growth for the duration of whatever they're planning. What you're stating could be applied to any time period there is some sort of growth, but just because there was growth yesterday, is growth today, and growth tomorrow is expected doesn't mean people believe in infinite growth. Assuming so is a logical fallacy.
TonyPrep wrote:
Your question implies (at least to me) that you see little evidence of people acting as though they believe in infinite growth. In this case list some evidence that people, generally, are prepared to live within the annual budget of resources that can be provided by this planet.
Fortunately it implies something else to me. I see evidence of a belief in short run growth, but no evidence of a belief in infinite growth. Those are entirely different creatures... _________________
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
Fission and terrestrial renewable sources (solar, wind, geothermal etc.) don't have any notable limits in the near-term.
That is your hope. It is not, necessarily, reality. Existing fission capacity may be reasonably secure (with replacements) for a century or two, but I think the world needs to start replacing its fossil fuels soon and fission seems to be the magic wand - so fissionable materials use will increase. Of course, you may claim that there are centuries of fissionable material and that nuclear fission reactors can be made 100% safe, but that is wishful thinking. Renewable energy also requires resources for land and materials, and all so-called renewable energy sources are already fully utilised by the biosphere, so, of course, all of these are limited.
I've run the numbers on this. We can safely assume that the absolute limit to power generation from fission power plants is maybe 10^16 watts, or 1/10th the entire solar flux, to avoid waste heat dissapation issues. Thats 1000 times the energy that we use today, a tidy amount of energy growth. Assuming thorium utilization, which is a very safe assumption given the technology was developed and prototyped four decades ago at ORNL, You have roughly 160 trillion tonnes of fissionable materials in the earths crust.
We know that this can be extracted easily at positive energy return simply by looking at the energy resource consumption numbers of the Rossing mine:
Quote:
The Rossing mine produced 3037 tonnes of Uranium in 2004, which is sufficient for 15 GigaWatt-years of electricity with current reactors. The energy used to mine and mill this Uranium was about 3% of a GigaWatt-year. Thus the energy produced is about 500 times more than the energy required to operate the mine.
Using thorium breeder reactors you have 200 times the energy return than in light water reactors. As energy costs increase in inverse proportion to ore grade concentration you can see that the energy return on the mining cost of thorium at 10 ppm in average crust is some ten times that of the operating Rossing mine today.
As you can produce one GW/year from 1 tonne of thorium, And we're using 10 million GW a year at the maximum radiative capacity of the earth, 160 trillion tonnes would last us 16 million years.
We can conclude, quite simply, there is no fuel limitation on nuclear power.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
yesplease wrote:
All of these things can and do happen over short run (lets say centuries) growth but do not indicate people believe in infinite growth
I didn't say it did indicate a belief in infinite growth but that people are acting in the same way as they would with such a belief.
yesplease wrote:
just because there was growth yesterday, is growth today, and growth tomorrow is expected doesn't mean people believe in infinite growth. Assuming so is a logical fallacy.
No logical fallacy, since I wasn't assuming that.
yesplease wrote:
I see evidence of a belief in short run growth, but no evidence of a belief in infinite growth.
If short run growth is over centuries, as you said, then I don't see much of a difference. Most people's view of the future probably lasts not much longer than their lifespan and their kids'. As they don't consider much longer than that, it's easy to see why they act as though growth can go on indefinitely. If you really see some significant evidence that people are bracing for an end to growth, please state it.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
Dezakin wrote:
We can conclude, quite simply, there is no fuel limitation on nuclear power.
No, you can conclude that. I can't. Once thorium reactors are the norm, maybe we can all conclude that. Though we still haven't addressed the safety issues of reactors and processing plants that can't be made 100% safe.
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
We can conclude, quite simply, there is no fuel limitation on nuclear power.
No, you can conclude that. I can't. Once thorium reactors are the norm, maybe we can all conclude that.
Just isn't good enough for you. Fine. With light water reactors restricting yourself to phosphate sources you can produce 10^16 watts (again 1000 times our global energy consumption today) for only 500 years in a once through cycle with no reprocessing whatsoever. If by then we couldn't manage to figure out how to utilize thorium breeders after having fully prototyped them in the 1960's I guess we deserve to freeze in the dark.
Quote:
Though we still haven't addressed the safety issues of reactors and processing plants that can't be made 100% safe.
Sorry, this isn't a foam-rubber world. Chernobyl, while tragic, showed the limits of the effects of nuclear accidents when you vaporize tonnes of an operating reactor, and the grim statistics offer a hopeful message: A sharp jump in the rate of thyroid cancers in a small percentage of the population for a short period of time. Dams break when they're poorly designed also.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
Dezakin wrote:
With light water reactors restricting yourself to phosphate sources you can produce 10^16 watts (again 1000 times our global energy consumption today) for only 500 years in a once through cycle with no reprocessing whatsoever. If by then we couldn't manage to figure out how to utilize thorium breeders after having fully prototyped them in the 1960's I guess we deserve to freeze in the dark.
If you say so. I know you think energy is the only issue. I think your mistaken. Energy alone cannot address all of the limitations we face. We're human, not the Krell.
Dezakin wrote:
Quote:
Though we still haven't addressed the safety issues of reactors and processing plants that can't be made 100% safe.
Sorry, this isn't a foam-rubber world. Chernobyl, while tragic, showed the limits of the effects of nuclear accidents when you vaporize tonnes of an operating reactor, and the grim statistics offer a hopeful message: A sharp jump in the rate of thyroid cancers in a small percentage of the population for a short period of time. Dams break when they're poorly designed also.
True. However, you seem willing for civilization to live with the near certainty (over time) of a catastrophic nuclear accident, if we continue to increase the number of reactors to feed your insatiable thirst for energy. I'm not.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Though we still haven't addressed the safety issues of reactors and processing plants that can't be made 100% safe.
Sorry, this isn't a foam-rubber world. Chernobyl, while tragic, showed the limits of the effects of nuclear accidents when you vaporize tonnes of an operating reactor, and the grim statistics offer a hopeful message: A sharp jump in the rate of thyroid cancers in a small percentage of the population for a short period of time. Dams break when they're poorly designed also.
True. However, you seem willing for civilization to live with the near certainty (over time) of a catastrophic nuclear accident, if we continue to increase the number of reactors to feed your insatiable thirst for energy. I'm not.
What sort of a statement is that? You cant live without being subject to risk, and taken at a measurement of an actual catastrophic nuclear accident, Chernobyl, the actual effects were fairly minimal compared to the original risk assessment. There are industries with far higher risk profiles than the effects of a reactor core incinerating in a populated area; Natural gas terminals blowing up, dam breaks, terrorist collapse of skyscrapers, chemical plant leaks... all these things produce far more damage and loss of life. Theres nothing inherently especially destructive about nuclear power accidents and thats borne out from actual experience with these accidents.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
Dezakin wrote:
You cant live without being subject to risk, and taken at a measurement of an actual catastrophic nuclear accident, Chernobyl, the actual effects were fairly minimal compared to the original risk assessment. There are industries with far higher risk profiles than the effects of a reactor core incinerating in a populated area; Natural gas terminals blowing up, dam breaks, terrorist collapse of skyscrapers, chemical plant leaks... all these things produce far more damage and loss of life. Theres nothing inherently especially destructive about nuclear power accidents and thats borne out from actual experience with these accidents.
But you want to increase nuclear capacity, way beyond what it is now. Every country, apparently, will need to replace its fossil fuel capacity and nuclear seems to be your preferred choice. Chernobyl was bad, and still has an impact today but you aren't privy to future knowledge of events. A much worse accident is likely. But the crazy thing is, we don't need nuclear, we just need to live within the annual budget of resources that the earth can provide (and do so without degrading our habitat). So why even bother to argue the toss about whether nuclear is capable, and why bother to open ourselves up to many kinds of risks with nuclear? There is no need.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
I think that view will change when natural gas and oil are both running short, not gone, mind you, just shortages and blackouts. People will howl and politicos will respond. Not saying what I favor to be done, but only commenting on human nature. _________________ Local fix-it guy..
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
You cant live without being subject to risk, and taken at a measurement of an actual catastrophic nuclear accident, Chernobyl, the actual effects were fairly minimal compared to the original risk assessment. There are industries with far higher risk profiles than the effects of a reactor core incinerating in a populated area; Natural gas terminals blowing up, dam breaks, terrorist collapse of skyscrapers, chemical plant leaks... all these things produce far more damage and loss of life. Theres nothing inherently especially destructive about nuclear power accidents and thats borne out from actual experience with these accidents.
But you want to increase nuclear capacity, way beyond what it is now. Every country, apparently, will need to replace its fossil fuel capacity and nuclear seems to be your preferred choice. Chernobyl was bad, and still has an impact today but you aren't privy to future knowledge of events.
It has a political impact I'll give you that. But theres nothing statistically measurably significant about anyone living in the exclusion zone or around the site. There are many areas of the world with much higher natural concentrations of biomobile radioisotopes with no measurable effect. Chernobyls tale of woe is spent.
Quote:
A much worse accident is likely.
Now that I'll disagree with strongly. The first response to that accident was to revise how reactors are designed. No one will ever build an RBMK style reactor ever again, and its rather unlikely that anyone investing in a reactor will make one without a containment building. The accident was also a direct consequence of a criminal negligence and absence of a safety culture I strongly doubt you'll find in a nuclear power industry again. But the reason a much worse accident isn't likely even if people set up all the events for Chernobyl to occur again, it was about as bad an accident as you could have. Ten percent of the core of a reactor over twice as big as most LWRs vaporized in a populated area. If you had a bioweapons lab built on top of the place I suppose it would be worse. Even if the winds were just right so all the cloud moved strait towards Kiev, the accident would still be far less catastrophic than a similar dam break or natural gas terminal explosion.
Quote:
But the crazy thing is, we don't need nuclear, we just need to live within the annual budget of resources that the earth can provide (and do so without degrading our habitat). So why even bother to argue the toss about whether nuclear is capable, and why bother to open ourselves up to many kinds of risks with nuclear? There is no need.
We dont 'need' to be alive either. We want a high energy standard ofliving, and you can try being patronizing towards the worlds poor if you want, but I dont expect that strategy will succeed.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
But the crazy thing is, we don't need nuclear, we just need to live within the annual budget of resources that the earth can provide (and do so without degrading our habitat). So why even bother to argue the toss about whether nuclear is capable, and why bother to open ourselves up to many kinds of risks with nuclear? There is no need.
No, the crazy thing is, you're discounting nuclear simply because it's called nuclear. Nuclear power is incredibly efficient and for many years to come will be 'within the annual budget of resources the earth can provide'. The earth won't provide it if you're leaving it in the ground and dismissing it out of hand.
It's quite obvious if we're going to wean ourselves off liquid fueled personal transport we're going to need to ramp up electricity production significantly. Electric cars, electric scooters, bikes electric god damn near everything. That way we can leave the oil for freight, farming, plastics, etc. We have wind, solar, natural gas, coal and yes we have nuclear too. We need to ramp it ALL up and fast before it's too late IMO.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2052 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
Dezakin wrote:
I'll disagree with strongly.
That's your prerogative. Statistically, a worse accident seems almost certain. As more countries, some with less stringent safety concerns and some with unstable societies, start and increase nuclear build, and since humans operate this stuff, an accident far worse than Chernobyl is very likely. However, I suppose we could all keep our collective fingers crossed.
Dezakin wrote:
We want a high energy standard ofliving, and you can try being patronizing towards the worlds poor if you want, but I dont expect that strategy will succeed.
I'm not being patronizing at all. I think the whole world (currently, though 7 billion may be pushing it) could have a good standard and quality of life without building more nuclear. Different doesn't mean poorer quality.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I see evidence of a belief in short run growth, but no evidence of a belief in infinite growth. Those are entirely different creatures...
