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: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Jenab6 wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
Jenab6 wrote:
It would cost energy to build nuclear reactors that will be needed to replace oil but which are not built already. Not only does it take a decade to complete a reactor, but the building consumes energy so that it will be a while before the reactor, after it is built, yields a net energy profit.
It takes several months.
Oh? Please issue a list of all the nuclear reactors that went from approval for construction to net energy profit (after paying for itself) in less than one year. I'd like to inspect it, so that I might see how numerous these quickly made nuclear reactors are.
Your time value is only relevant to financing, not to energy analysis. Your requirement of one year isn't ever actually used either. No large scale (gigawatt range) plant goes online in less than a year, hydro coal or nuclear.
Edit: Oh, I realize the confusion now. It takes several months of runtime to pay for the energy of the construction of the reactor, not to build it.
But you can check the WNA citations for further analysis of their sources.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
Jenab6 wrote:
Further, it would cost energy to gather up enough rock to extract low concentrations of fissiles and process them into fuel-grade form. The uranium deposits that are commercially worth exploiting would peak in a short time, not in billions of years.
Uranium and thorium follow the log normal distribution in the earths crust, its not analagous to coal and oil.
On the average, you must process two tons of ore to get a nickle's mass of uranium. Furthermore 99.28 percent of that uranium is U238, which isn't immediately fissile. In order to get a nickle's worth of fissile U235, you must process about 300 tons of average common rock. There's physically crushing the rock, then chemically separating the uranium oxide from the rock, then treating the oxide to get the uranium metal. Then machining and shipping, guarding the stuff from people like me (just kidding), and making sure that nobody like you (just kidding) puts a near critical mass together by accident.
What's the EROEI from all that?
I guess you didn't read my post. The Rossing mine in Namibia produces from 300ppm (low conc ore) enough uranium that when burned it yields more than 500 times the energy required to mine it. It yields several times the entire electrical consumption of Namibia actually.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
Theres nearly a trillion tons at that ore concentration [~20 ppm]. That would last todays demand some 10 million years. Now if you utilize thorium breeder reactors, you use the fuel 200 times as efficiently (1 tonne per gw year electric) and get to use thorium. The energy density of average crust runs several times that of coal.
So how do you locate patches of rock with those ten times the average uranium concentrations? Unlike true uranium ores, these low grade uranium rocks probably can't be recognized without careful inspection. And how extensive is one of these low grade strands? How do you know they occur in stripes instead of little tiny polka dots?
Thats not how it works in log normal distribution. Uranium and Thorium chemistry attract them to certain mineral formations.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
There are lots of solutions to our energy supply. Nuclear being only one of them. This is not the fundamental problem.
The problem that is insurmountable is that none of them will plausibly sustain 6.5 billion people in the same way that light sweet and, to a lesser extent, heavy sour crude oil do.
The main reasons for this are:
EROEI
Speed of supply
Portability and energy density.
We don't need to look at nuclear. there are simply huge reserves of carbon fossil fuels in the form of tar sands and oil shale.
For an analogy of the problem of speed of supply, see below:
Imagine a barrel full of water. A queue of 100 people are lined up behind it all waiting to get a drink. The barrel has an open top and a ladle inside. Each person takes a ladle full of water and then goes to the back of the queue. The time it takes to take a drink of water, combined with the size of the ladle means that 100 is the optimum queue length. Any longer and some people would die of thirst before they got back to the front of the queue.
One day the barrel runs out. Everyone panics. Then someone shouts "I've found a new barrel and this ones fifty times as big". The trouble is, though, that this barrel has a lid sealing the top. Poking out from the centre is a small straw. People are still able to get ladle's worth of water. However, it takes much longer to get it now. This means that some people in the queue will inevitably die of thirst before they get to the barrel. Obviously, once the queue has reduced in length, a new optimum will be arrived at. This is why tar sands, nuclear et al will not work for our current populations.
The problem with portability is rather obvious. Although nuclear generated electricity is very versatile, it is not very good at hauling mass goods overland, oversea or by air. Unless, of course, we introduce mass electification of public transport. This would need to be done initially with oil based energy Right at the time when such energy is going stratospheric in terms of its price.
As for the EROEI. Well, this problem is resolved when we get down to a billion or so. Who cares how innefficient its recovery becomes when the amount relative to the population becomes so massive.
Then, again, a less rosy prediction would be that the major powers fight over the remaining oil in WWIII. In which case a lot of people die very quickly. Maybe that will be a blessing. At least they wont have to spend two or three decades slowly starving.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
dohboi wrote:
BW, yes, I'm sure you think everyone who disagrees with your elitist wet dream is a retard.
FYI, I rarely watch TV or consume corn syrup. And I wasn't around to see what my mom was smoking, but I want some of that good crap you're inhaling that gives you those wild halucinations.
You're just upset no one mailed you an invitation. Doh!
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
stevecook172001 wrote:
EROEI
Nuclear has ample energy return. We can ignore this.
Quote:
Speed of supply
France went from 0 to 80% nuclear electricity inside 2 decades.
Quote:
Portability and energy density.
Nuclear hydrogen can address this issue.
--
Quote:
This is why tar sands, nuclear et al will not work for our current populations.
You made a huge leap there. Nuclear can obviously pump out huge amounts of energy at any rate you need. There isn't any scaling problem with it.
Quote:
The problem with portability is rather obvious. Although nuclear generated electricity is very versatile, it is not very good at hauling mass goods overland, oversea or by air. Unless, of course, we introduce mass electification of public transport. This would need to be done initially with oil based energy Right at the time when such energy is going stratospheric in terms of its price.
Or you can turn nuclear process heat into hydrogen and turn that into diesel fuel, with no scalability issues. You aren't going to run planes on batteries.
Quote:
There is going to be a huge die off.
Got a date when the population is going to be smaller than today? Or a scenario even? We'll turn coal into liquids over the next 30-50 years and use nuclear power for the next 50 years after that.
Following that the only thing I can rule out is a die off. Power production for civilization is only going to get bigger. Lots bigger.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
stevecook172001 wrote:
There are lots of solutions to our energy supply. Nuclear being only one of them. This is not the fundamental problem.
The problem that is insurmountable is that none of them will plausibly sustain 6.5 billion people in the same way that light sweet and, to a lesser extent, heavy sour crude oil do.
No, the fundamental problem is that the last thing we need is more energy to try and sustain a population in overshoot of it's environment.
Replacing declining energy does not negate or cancel our overshoot situation, it just passes the baton to the next least abundant necessity that will set the limit, while excacerbating our overshoot condition with a new dollop of sugar in the petri dish.
Gasoline on a fire. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Dezakin wrote:
Following that the only thing I can rule out is a die off. Power production for civilization is only going to get bigger. Lots bigger.
There are no limits.
To the moon, Alice! _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Dezakin wrote:
Another strawman. Of course there are limits.
None you will recognize. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
In fact the rabbit population is serious problem in Australia,
and they are worried the vaccine used by commercial
growers elsewhere could get into the wild population
in Austrailia and cause a rabbit population explosion.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 4603 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:22 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
No, the fundamental problem is that the last thing we need is more energy to try and sustain a population in overshoot of it's environment.
Replacing declining energy does not negate or cancel our overshoot situation, it just passes the baton to the next least abundant necessity that will set the limit, while excacerbating our overshoot condition with a new dollop of sugar in the petri dish.
Gasoline on a fire.
Just because the suger is there, doesn't mean we HAVE to eat it. I know it's beyond your comprehension to think that, but if a small minority of people "get" overshoot, then it's proven that the concept IS within human comprehension. Humans CAN be smarter than yeast. The only question is how MANY humans can be smarter than yeast.
So by assuming that there will never be a global shift in understanding of the problem, you'd rather 6 billion die now than to grant humanity one last chance? _________________ http://doomsteaddiary.blogspot.com/
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Die-off vs die-back. (me trying to think through the issue)
Many pages back before the discussion veered towards ‘nuclear power or not’ Monte commented that what we are seeing in Russia, with an annual decline in population of around 800 000 souls (0,5% p.a. rate) is a die-back rather than a die-off.
To get this in perspective I looked for the figures for historic population for here in Finland. Before the famine of 1696-7 (when an estimated 1/3rd of the population died) there were around 500 000 people in the country. The population slowly climbed back to around 420 000 in 1750. Using the 500 000 as an approximation for the carrying capacity in this area, the current population is over 10 times this figure. (Would it be better to use a figure of around 350 000 for an approximation of the local carrying capacity, as that represents the number of people who survived the famine years?)
Using the current rate of population decline that Russia is experiencing (around 0,5% p.a.) it would take nearly 500 years for the population to slowly decline to what would be a reasonable level for carrying capacity. Even if the decline was at double the rate it would take about 250 years to get back to the long-term carrying capacity rate. To reach this level by 2050 would take an annual population decline of 5,5% p.a..
I suppose in biological terms the 33% decline in population seen over the two famine years would be considered a ‘die-back’ instead of a ‘die-off’ as the population did not totally collapse. Is it possible that the world will get its reduction through a series of these sever ‘die-backs’, rather than a one off ‘die-off’?
Anyway, either seem to be a very grim for me. _________________ We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
A wave of die backs is the more likly outcome I think. simply because renewables become ever more plausible as the population reduces. This will have the effect of causing the die back to decrease in speed and severity as time goes on. All we can hope is that we, as a species, retain out current technological knowledge as this occurs.
I say the above because there is a very real risk of a civilisation smashing global conflict along the way which would reduce our world to rubble. The thing to rememeber is that much of our current advanced technological knowledge is in the hands (or more properly, the minds) of a very small number of people. Most people havn't got a clue how things work. The television in the corner of the room, to take one example, might as well be operating on magical principles as far as most people are concerned. The same is true for most modern technologies.
Our civilisation is remarkably fragile compared to historical comparisons. This is because most of us are so divorced form the means of our survival. Inevitably so, I should add, as the price we must pay for having such a complex civilisation.
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
mos6507 wrote:
Just because the suger is there, doesn't mean we HAVE to eat it. I know it's beyond your comprehension to think that, but if a small minority of people "get" overshoot, then it's proven that the concept IS within human comprehension. Humans CAN be smarter than yeast. The only question is how MANY humans can be smarter than yeast.
So by assuming that there will never be a global shift in understanding of the problem, you'd rather 6 billion die now than to grant humanity one last chance?
6 billion need to die for humanity to have one last chance.
There is no solution that involves the earth gettting to keep it's overshoot population.
And even if we all "get" overshoot, there will still be a die-off.
The sequel to overshoot is always a die-off.
The question that remains is how badly will the population contraction decimate the environment?
The chance to be smarter than yeast was before we overshot the carrying capacity. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
IslandCrow wrote:
Is it possible that the world will get its reduction through a series of these sever ‘die-backs’, rather than a one off ‘die-off’?
Die-backs occur with populations that are approaching or just exceeded carrying capacity, not for populations that have zoomed past the capacity and overshot it by a huge margin.
They die-off. Sometimes go extinct.
The rate and magintude of the human correction could be quite different as energy availability declines. Depends upon how much sugar we can keep dribbling into the petri dish.
It's the sudden end to the sugar that creates the fast crash scenario.
Will resource wars bring that sudden end? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
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
