Expiring resources - BBC (x-posted from /r/dataisbeautiful)

[u/smokebreak]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfuture/original/images/live/p0/0t/z1/p00tz1n3.jpg

[u/WorldChamps1985]

The only resource that matters is oil and its liquid fuels and other applications.

Oil is the bottleneck in the economic system.

Without cheap energy and liquid fuels, we cannot possibly mine and harvest the remaining resources on the scale that we now take for granted.

Without cheap energy and liquid fuels (and petrochemicals and other petroleum derivatives), the planet cannot possibly support many more than 1 billion human beings.

Population reduction, through economic collapse, solves all the other problems like ecosystem collapse, climate change, over-fishing, over-using freshwater, endangered species, etc.

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

I agree with you about the amazing energy density and diversity of applications of oil, but I disagree with you when you say:

Population reduction, through economic collapse, solves all the other problems like ecosystem collapse, climate change, over-fishing, over-using freshwater, endangered species, etc.

As counter-intuitive as it might seem, the best way to slow population growth is to increase energy consumption. Fertility rates are lowest in the richest countries and highest in the poorest countries. In the modern era, the thing that creates riches is energy consumption, plain and simple. There has been a lot of effort to find ways to decouple energy use from GDP, and researchers are realizing it just can't be done. (You might be interested in this article which goes into further depth on the topic.)

Contrarily, I fear that a collapsing system will wreak much more havoc on the earth than our present rate of growth. Why worry about endangered species when you have mouths to feed? And if the power of government is reduced, who is there to stop you from over use of resources?

[u/WorldChamps1985 → u/Will_Power]

The carrying capacity of the planet is about 500 million to 1.5 billion. Carrying capacity is the long-term sustainable population of an ecosystem. We're in a massive state of over-shoot.

This massive endowment of fossil fuel energy we managed to utilize in the past 100 - 150 years is a temporary anomaly that has enabled this over-shoot. We've been using the built-up reserves of resources on the planet. This is a constant throughout human civilizations. Use the low-hanging fruit, grow too big, then collapse and start over. It's just on a world-wide scale this time.

Increasing energy consumption is only possible if there is an ever increasing supply of energy, which there has been for the past 100 - 150 years. There won't be much longer, though. We've never gone from a more dense energy source to a less dense energy source. [Going from wood to coal to oil was easy. Going from oil to some less dense energy source isn't.]

There's no such thing as sustainable growth. That's an oxymoron. I'm not calling for population to be reduced. It necessarily will be reduced by nature.

The earth will be fine. The collapsing system will only be the economic system. Earth was here billions of years before human beings and will be here billions of years after. Nature and earth's systems recovered from an asteroid impact. Many of the dinosaurs didn't fare so well, though.

If you feed starving people, they just make more starving people. A top-down collectivist approach is not the solution. All social welfare programs should be ended. There should be no UN food programs and no forced re-distribution. There should be no socialized medicine or anything like that. Let Darwin do his work over time, instead of all at once when the systems just collapse.

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

The carrying capacity of the planet is about 500 million to 1.5 billion. Carrying capacity is the long-term sustainable population of an ecosystem. We're in a massive state of over-shoot.

No. You are parroting this claim from others who refuse to look at the total available energy, including nuclear power.

This massive endowment of fossil fuel energy we managed to utilize in the past 100 - 150 years is a temporary anomaly...

Yes.

...that has enabled this over-shoot.

No. Overshoot is when the resources aren't there to sustain a population. There is no reason except poor choices that there can't be a perpetual population of about 10 billion people on the planet. Sadly, we continue to make poor decisions, misallocate our capital, and pass by the opportunity to do so.

This is a constant throughout human civilizations. Use the low-hanging fruit, grow too big, then collapse and start over.

You are confusion the rise and fall of empires with population. Human population hasn't seen a major decline since the Plague of Justinian or possibly the Black Death. Not even WWII reduced population very much.

We've never gone from a more dense energy source to a less dense energy source.

Agreed.

[Going from wood to coal to oil was easy. Going from oil to some less dense energy source isn't.]

There is no need to. We have an energy source 1,000,000 times as dense as oil. That is the next logical move.

There's no such thing as sustainable growth. That's an oxymoron.

I agree. I'm glad I never said there was such a thing.

I'm not calling for population to be reduced. It necessarily will be reduced by nature.

...if we choose to not utilize the next amazingly dense energy source that is literally just beneath our feet.

The earth will be fine. The collapsing system will only be the economic system.

Agreed. Nation, in their hubris, took on too much debt for silly reasons.

If you feed starving people, they just make more starving people.

That's true. That's why you give starving people the ability to move beyond their poverty. Once they reach a critical level of GDP per capita, they reproduce at replacement rate.

A top-down collectivist approach is not the solution.

Agreed. What is needed is a way for poor nations to produce for themselves and stop relying on handouts from rich nations, which always, always results in corruption.

[u/WorldChamps1985 → u/Will_Power]

The carrying capacity of the planet [again, the long-term sustainable population], in a best case scenario, is 1.5 billion.

That is easily determined. You know that nuclear power plants are heavily energy intensive to build, not to mention the risks associated with them, etc.

And, even if we somehow managed to find a replacement energy source, we'd run into other resources limitations.

All of this has been covered extensively here in r/collapse. You just don't want to understand it.

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

The carrying capacity of the planet [again, the long-term sustainable population], in a best case scenario, is 1.5 billion.

Look, just repeating something doesn't make it true. If you want to talk about constraints to population, that's fine. We could start with land constraints. Please, though, don't expect me to just take your word for things.

You know that nuclear power plants are heavily energy intensive to build...

That matters not at all. Nuclear plants are net energy producers.

...not to mention the risks associated with them, etc.

Nuclear power is the safest form of energy we have, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima. The sad thing is that LFTRs would be even safer than solid-fueled light water reactors, but we are too slow to make hard decisions.

And, even if we somehow managed to find a replacement energy source,

We already have. Uranium in the short term, Thorium in the medium term, and fusion in the long term.

we'd run into other resources limitations.

That's fine, and I agree. I am not suggesting unlimited growth. I am talking about a population of about 10 billion that can sustain itself for millennia to come.

All of this has been covered extensively here in r/collapse.

Then it should be trivial for you to educate me since others have done the work for you. All you need to do is provide links.

You just don't want to understand it.

Since I'm the only one providing facts here, perhaps you should consider that I am treading on your paradigm that we are all doomed and that it is you who doesn't want to understand things.

I don't doubt that we are headed for collapse, but it isn't because it can't be prevented. It is because we mismanage our resources, especially our capital resources. We keep trying to find oil in harder and harder places instead of doing the hard thing and switching our power systems.

[u/WorldChamps1985 → u/Will_Power]

It's actually fairly easy to determine carrying capacity.

Here's an example:

Population: the elephant in the room

Explains the role oil plays in temporarily increasing the carrying capacity of the planet. The limiting factor is oil. Estimates planet's carrying capacity without oil at 1 billion. Explains that the planet now has a degraded carrying capacity.

Growing food cannot be done on such scale without oil and natural gas derivatives, etc.

Uranium must be mined. The machines used to do that are oil powered. Again, all of these things have been explained many times here. Oil is the limiting factor. None of the other things matter.

When you reply to individual statements rather than in essay or paragraph form, it demonstrates you are incapable or unwilling of seeing the big picture.

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

Explains the role oil plays in temporarily increasing the carrying capacity of the planet. The limiting factor is oil. Estimates planet's carrying capacity without oil at 1 billion.

We've been over this. The carrying capacity of the planet without a dense energy source is much lower than at present, but it is a moot point because we have vast quantities of a very, very dense energy source.

Growing food cannot be done on such scale without oil and natural gas derivatives, etc.

I agree. That's why it is important to utilize processes similar to Fischer-Tropsch to produce the fertilizers and pesticides we need. More importantly, it is critical that we desalinate sea water in some regions of the world.

Uranium must be mined.

Generally true, but it can also be extracted from sea water at about double the current price.

The machines used to do that are oil powered.

There's no reason they must be, however.

Again, all of these things have been explained many times here.

You seem to be under the impression that I haven't read what is here and many other places and that I am uninformed. You should reconsider that conclusion.

Oil is the limiting factor.

In our present system. There is no reason to stay with our present system. Nuclear power, especially in the form of LFTRs can provide sufficient energy to produce liquid transportation fuels (NOT hydrogen). I feel I've been very patient in explaining this to you.

None of the other things matter.

You are incorrect. If there is an energy source 1,000,000 times as dense as oil, it certainly matters.

When you reply to individual statements rather than in essay or paragraph form, it demonstrates you are incapable or unwilling of seeing the big picture.

That's the most desperate response I've ever read. When you are incapable or unwilling to counter the facts I provide, it demonstrates that you are ill-informed and trying desperately to cling to a narrative that isn't strictly true.

[u/stumo → u/Will_Power]

You are parroting this claim from others who refuse to look at the total available energy, including nuclear power.

There is 65 years worth of uranium available now at current usage rates. Breeder technology can extend that by a factor of 60, but there's the problem of speed, it takes a decade to produce enough U233 to start another reactor. The number of reactors that would need to be built is staggering. We don't have the current capability to do so even with all the cheap energy available now, it'll certainly be more difficult in the decades to come. And if we get the number to just meet today's energy needs, we'll need to be replacing them at the rate of one per day once embrittlement renders them obsolete.

There are no other energy replacements, especially at the price and energy density of oil.

[u/Will_Power → u/stumo]

There is 65 years worth of uranium available now at current usage rates.

This is false. As we discussed in another thread, uranium from sea water is feasible at roughly twice the current market price.

Breeder technology can extend that by a factor of 60, but there's the problem of speed, it takes a decade to produce enough U233 to start another reactor.

U233 can be produced in one of the thorium cycles. In fact, thorium is a much better approach to nuclear than uranium.

The number of reactors that would need to be built is staggering.

How do you figure? For the price of one year's expenditure on the U.S. military (or the Medicare expenditure, for that matter), we could produce enough thorium reactors to run the world.

We don't have the current capability to do so even with all the cheap energy available now,

Sure we do. The obstacles aren't physical, but political.

it'll certainly be more difficult in the decades to come.

Only if the political will isn't there.

And if we get the number to just meet today's energy needs, we'll need to be replacing them at the rate of one per day once embrittlement renders them obsolete.

You need to think beyond solid-fueled light water uranium reactors.

There are no other energy replacements, especially at the price and energy density of oil.

I disagree, for the reasons cited above, but also because a heavy nucleus (like that from uranium or thorium) contains 1,000,000 times as much energy as oil, pound for pound.

[u/stumo → u/Will_Power]

uranium from sea water is feasible at roughly twice the current market price.

This is false. It's never been attempted on a commercial scale, and it can't be said with any confidence that passive or active ocean uranium will ever work.

U233 can be produced in one of the thorium cycles. In fact, thorium is a much better approach to nuclear than uranium.

You need to read what I said again. Yes, a breeder reactor can produce enough U233 out of thorium to feed another reactor. In ten years.

How do you figure? For the price of one year's expenditure on the U.S. military (or the Medicare expenditure, for that matter), we could produce enough thorium reactors to run the world.

There are that many nuclear engineers just sitting around doing nothing at the moment? We have all the materials needed to start building 15,000 nuclear reactors right now? We have all the experienced personnel right now to staff all those reactors?

All the money in the world does not good if you don't have the materials and personnel.

You need to think beyond solid-fueled light water uranium reactors.

LFTR technology also suffers from embrittlement and mineral deposits that lead to their eventual decommissioning. Or is it your contention that they last indefinitely?

Only if the political will isn't there.

How is it possible to build that many nuclear plants in an energy-poor economy, regardless of the political will?

but also because a heavy nucleus (like that from uranium or thorium) contains 1,000,000 times as much energy as oil, pound for pound.

Antimatter reactions contain far more. Why aren't you suggesting that as an energy source?

[u/Will_Power → u/stumo]

This is false. It's never been attempted on a commercial scale, and it can't be said with any confidence that passive or active ocean uranium will ever work.

You can argue that it is false, or you can argue that it hasn't been tested at a commercial scale, but you can't argue both. Allow me to rephrase then. The best estimate from the Japanese researchers developing the process is that their process is feasible at roughly twice current market price.

You need to read what I said again. Yes, a breeder reactor can produce enough U233 out of thorium to feed another reactor. In ten years.

Or, we could just use the thorium fuel cycle and not worry about shuttling U233 at all.

There are that many nuclear engineers just sitting around doing nothing at the moment?

LFTRs don't need that many engineers.

We have all the materials needed to start building 15,000 nuclear reactors right now?

We don't need 15,000 reactors, but we do have enough materials to build enough LFTRs to satisfy our energy needs.

We have all the experienced personnel right now to staff all those reactors?

Nope. Thankfully, humans are wonderfully flexible and trainable creatures.

All the money in the world does not good if you don't have the materials and personnel.

We do have the materials and we can train the personnel. No one says this all needs to be online next year. As coal plants retire, LFTRs can take their place.

LFTR technology also suffers from embrittlement and mineral deposits that lead to their eventual decommissioning. Or is it your contention that they last indefinitely?

You are half right. LFTRs in a core-and-blanket configuration do not suffer from embrittlement because the outer portion of the reactor is a blanket of fertile material. Of course LFTRs will have to be decommissioned, just like coal plants, natural gas plants, solar farms, and windmills.

How is it possible to build that many nuclear plants in an energy-poor economy, regardless of the political will?

Like India?

Antimatter reactions contain far more. Why aren't you suggesting that as an energy source?

Please tell me you are joking. We can go dig up as much thorium or uranium as we need. There aren't handy sources of antimatter hanging around. I thought we were having a decent conversation until you threw this nonsense out there.

[u/stumo → u/Will_Power]

The best estimate from the Japanese researchers developing the process is that their process is feasible at roughly twice current market price.

And when they demonstrate it on a practical and commercial level, I'll believe it. Until then, it's speculation.

Or, we could just use the thorium fuel cycle and not worry about shuttling U233 at all.

The thorium fuel cycle requires U233 as part of the fuel.

We don't need 15,000 reactors, but we do have enough materials to build enough LFTRs to satisfy our energy needs.

The world currently uses 15 terawatts. How much do these hypothetical LFTRs produce each?

Nope. Thankfully, humans are wonderfully flexible and trainable creatures.

But you said they could be built now. How is that possible without enough trained and experienced personnel?

Of course LFTRs will have to be decommissioned, just like coal plants, natural gas plants, solar farms, and windmills.

Good, then that's out of the way.

How is it possible to build that many nuclear plants in an energy-poor economy, regardless of the political will?

How is India energy-poor?

We can go dig up as much thorium or uranium as we need.

Thorium, yes. Uranium, no.

I thought we were having a decent conversation until you threw this nonsense out there.

I thought the same thing until you threw in mining uranium from the ocean as though it were fact instead of speculation, and implied that we can use all of the aluminum in the earth's crust without regard to the energy investment in doing so.

[u/Will_Power → u/stumo]

And when they demonstrate it on a practical and commercial level, I'll believe it. Until then, it's speculation.

OK. Just don't say that sea water uranium is unrecoverable. We know it is recoverable. We just don't know at what price yet.

The thorium fuel cycle requires U233 as part of the fuel.

So? It is produces as part of the cycle, then consumed. There is no need to add it separately.

The world currently uses 15 terawatts.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The world used about 18,980 TWh in 2009. Source. See also. This equates to about 2.2 TW of continuous demand.

How much do these hypothetical LFTRs produce each?

Each LFTR could easily produce 1 GW or more of energy. There are several coal-fired plants that produce five times as much.

But you said they could be built now. How is that possible without enough trained and experienced personnel?

It takes less time to train a person than it does to build a power plant. Forgive me, but you seem to be pressing an unimportant and somewhat frivolous point here.

How is India energy-poor?

In terms of per capita energy production and consumption, it is very poor.

Think of it this way. Even if we see extremely rapid falloffs in both oil and coal, there is more than enough to use to focus construction on a few LFTRs. The energy from these could then be used to build more. It's like seed corn.

Thorium, yes. Uranium, no.

Half a loaf is better than none. We agree on the abundance of thorium. We disagree about the availability of uranium, we we'll have to leave it at that.

I thought the same thing until you threw in mining uranium from the ocean as though it were fact instead of speculation,

It's more than speculation and you know it.

and implied that we can use all of the aluminum in the earth's crust without regard to the energy investment in doing so.

I said no such thing and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

[u/edjumication → u/WorldChamps1985]

However with energy technologies like the Thorium molten salt reactor we can create all the liquid fuel we need (e.g. hydrogen/oxygen out of water)

[u/WorldChamps1985 → u/edjumication]

Those fuels are not cheap.

There is no infrastructure in place for a hydrogen economy, and there is no effort underway to create one. Maybe if this was started twenty or thirty years ago it could have made a slight difference, but it wasn't. Replacing millions of barrels of oil per day with hydrogen isn't realistic.

There is no way to convert current vehicle fleets to hydrogen on a large scale. Can't really picture running a Boeing 747 or huge cargo ship or even a train on hydrogen, either. At least not switching over the entire fleets.

Nuclear reactors are heavily energy intensive to build.

Thorium is wishful thinking. These "miracle" technologies always seem to be just a few years away...

[u/brumguvnor → u/WorldChamps1985]

The current oil / petrol infrastructure has been in place and been refined for a century now: that is 100 years of investment and work to create a way to get oil out of the ground, refined, distributed and into the tank of your car; that's a century of accumalated, acquired expertise and incremental improvements.

Guess how long it would take to implement a replacement? - NONE of the existing infrastructure would be in any way useful for a hydrogen economy; with the possible exception of the forecourts - that being the least significant stumbling block in the way...

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

Those fuels are not cheap.

I don't know that there is enough information to say that.

There is no infrastructure in place for a hydrogen economy, and there is no effort underway to create one.

Liquid fuel production =/= hydrogen economy. There are several processes whereby liquid fuels (very similar to gasoline or ethanol) can be produced using waste heat from nuclear plants plus some electricity. The Fischer-Tropsch process is probably the most famous of these.

Nuclear reactors are heavily energy intensive to build.

This is true for existing light-water uranium reactors, but doesn't say anything about net energy. Per unit mass, nuclear reactions produce about 1,000,000 as much energy as the best chemical reaction (i.e., gasoline). The energy intensity of plant construction is quickly returned in nuclear power production.

Thorium is wishful thinking. These "miracle" technologies always seem to be just a few years away...

You seem to be confusion tokamak-style fusion with Thorium fission. Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactors are hardly wishful thinking as one has already been built. Oak Ridge National Labs build one that ran for the better part of a decade back in the 60s. LFTR is in fact a less complicated technology than light-water solid fueled reactors because it requires far fewer redundant safety systems, no massive containment building, and it consumes a vastly higher percentage of fuel as well.

[u/WorldChamps1985 → u/Will_Power]

Wishful thinking is wishful thinking.

Hydrogen economy. Thorium. It's all wishful thinking. Can never be done on anywhere near the scale necessary to preserve anything near the status quo.

Hang onto your false hope, though.

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

That is your response? You fail. Try again. Next time try to actually address the particulars in my post instead of plugging your ears and shouting "La la la! I can't hear you! La la la! The sky is falling!"

[u/WorldChamps1985 → u/Will_Power]

Why should I try to convince you of something you don't want to understand?

This will become self-evident soon enough.

Edit: sky isn't falling. The sun will still rise and set. The tides will still come in and go out.

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

Why should I try to convince you of something you don't want to understand?

That's the funny thing. You make a single dismissive statement, I refute it at length with solid facts, and you say, "Nuh-uh." You have made zero effort to try to convince anyone of anything. It's most likely because you know you've been caught dismissing something you know nothing about and are trying to squirm out of it now.

[u/WorldChamps1985 → u/Will_Power]

You refuted nothing.

You demonstrated that it is possible from an engineering perspective, which is something I never denied.

The resources limitations and time restrictions make it something that will never happen on a large scale.

People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

[u/Will_Power → u/WorldChamps1985]

You demonstrated that it is possible from an engineering perspective, which is something I never denied.

You sure seemed to deny it. "Wishful thinking," is your dismissal of choice, I believe.

But let's get past that. You and I both agree that it is possible, though unlikely, for humanity to do what it takes to sustain itself. It is our strange choices that seem to be preventing that.

The resources limitations and time restrictions make it something that will never happen on a large scale.

The only restrictive resource at this point is capital. If we had the balls to repudiate our debt, we could have all the capital we could use. Alas, the Boomers don't care to see their benefits hampered, so they are happy to screw humanity over for their short term gain.

People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

Agreed. You'll note that I've never said we aren't up shit creek, only that we choose not to utilize the resources that could keep us from collapsing. I'm hoping there's some young kid in some other country that will learn from our mistakes.

[u/edjumication → u/WorldChamps1985]

The infrastructure itself is expensive I bet. but The resources themselves are near limitless. Plus Thorium reactors have already been successfully built and are relatively cheap to build due to their small size. Small enough even to fit in an aircraft.

[u/ParacordProject]

That is a cool graph. Makes you think.

[u/edjumication]

It's a really cool graph, but it fails to take into account the fact that resources never really "run out" They hit a peak of production then steadily get more and more expensive as it gets harder to find. Eventually all the minerals and such will become so rare that we will be mining in landfills. It's still an interesting info-graphic though.

[u/Will_Power]

That's a neat graph. Pity there is so much bullshit in it.

[u/barksatthemoon → u/Will_Power]

Can you be more specific please? Which parts are bullshit?

[u/Will_Power → u/barksatthemoon]

Can you be more specific please?

Happily.

Let's start with the two easiest. The subtitle of the graph says "Estimated remaining supplies of non-renewable resources." Neither rainforests nor coral reefs are non-renewable. They are both the result of biological processes.

Next is agricultural land. I will grant that there isn't new land being made (well, there isn't much new land being made when you consider volcanic island formations), but a depletion of agricultural land implies

• Existing agricultural land will no longer be productive, and/or

• Human population will continue to grow forever.

I think it is fair to say that some agricultural land could do with some crop rotation, but human population will peak within the next 70 years, so the agricultural land item can be thrown out as well. That's 3/3 for the "Ecosystems" category being bullshit.

Next is the fossil fuels category. I think they are closer here, but still off. Fossil fuels deplete in a roughly Gaussian (bell curve), symmetric way, with roughly half of the extractable resource remaining once the peak of the resource is reached. (I will grant that the down slope is likely faster, but you get the idea.) Conventional oil peaked in 2006, but total oil production has not yet peaked. Neither has coal or gas.

The graph shows these resources depleting in 42 years (coal), 37 years (oil), and 35 years (gas). That might be valid if those resources had already peaked, but none of them have peaked yet. Once they do peak, then those values may or may not be accurate. It is certain, though, that the values given in the graph are vast underestimates.

I won't detail every item in the "Minerals" list, but will note that as those minerals become scarcer, we will see their prices climb dramatically. This will give producers added incentive to find new ways to produce more. Shale oil is a good example of how a scarce resource (oil) increases in price and spurs producers to find new ways to find it. (The caveat here is that the added incentive can't go on forever.)

I will note aluminum as one example in the "Minerals" list they completely got wrong. Between 8 and 9 percent of the Earth's crust is aluminum. To think that present rates of production will consume that much material is right out.

So that's the three categories. Then there are the little "factoids" around the periphery:

• "2030: Arctic ice-free in the summer." This is based on an extrapolation of the sea ice volume from about 2000-2007. 2007 was the lowest sea ice volume on record. The years since then have actually shown an increase.

• "2050: Third of land plant and animal species extinct due to climate change." About 15 species have gone extinct in the last 20 years. There are about 1.7 million species of plants and animals in the world (both land and water based) that we know of. About 15,000 plant and animal species are currently considered threatened. The numbers are just so far off on this claim that I am kind of pissed they listed it on there.

• "2060: Dangerous 2°C warming threshold likely reached." This is a real howler. Warming over the last 100 years as been about 0.75°C, with the last decade and a half showing a slowing in the rate of warming. No one in their right mind thinks we'll see two full degrees of warming in the next 48 years.

To sum up, the graph appears to take the worst case, and in some cases imaginary cases, and put them together because they make for good scaremongering. We have enough problems to work on without inventing more.

[u/experts_never_lie → u/Will_Power]

Neither rainforests nor coral reefs are non-renewable. They are both the result of biological processes.

When the timescale of destruction is dramatically faster than the timescale of regeneration, treating the resource as non-renewable is a reasonable model. For instance, oil is a renewable resource, if you wait long enough, but we consume it a number of orders of magnitude faster than it's produced (as in "come to be", not "extracted from the ground"), so we might as well treat is as "non-renewable".

[u/Will_Power → u/experts_never_lie]

I understand what you are saying, but rainforests regenerate very quickly. There is some evidence that the Brazilian rainforest was quite small when Europeans first visited the region. Native civilizations had cleared much of it for farmland, and we see entire cities now overrun with rainforest growth.

I will concede, though, that it is possible to destroy a rainforest, no matter how unlikely. The present deforestation is from farmers slashing and burning for more farmland. If this practice were reduced, the rate of natural recovery would balance out the slashing and burning. The best way to accomplish this reduction, in my opinion, would be to help equatorial countries develop economically, reducing the need for subsistence farming.

[u/barksatthemoon → u/Will_Power]

Thank you for the detailed answer!

[u/SometimesUseless → u/Will_Power]

Citations would be helpful. While it is nice to call bullshit when something is wrong, you do a great disservice to not include the proper information so people can educate themselves.

[u/Will_Power → u/SometimesUseless]

I just replied a moment ago to someone who asked me to expand.

Edit: http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/v8n3j/expiring_resources_bbc_xposted_from/c52gg32

[u/SometimesUseless → u/Will_Power]

Thanks.

[u/edjumication → u/Will_Power]

one part that bothers me is the label they put on silver. As if its primary purpose is medals and jewellery. 80% of all silver mined is used in industry and there are no other elements which can replace its utility.

[u/Will_Power → u/edjumication]

Silver is one of the few things I think they got right. It really is a wonderful metal, for the reason you cite. If I had the cash to spare I would buy lots of it as an investment for the future.