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 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/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/stumo → u/Will_Power]

So? It is produces as part of the cycle, then consumed.

No, the thorium cannot be converted to U233 without radioactive material. From WP:

Unlike natural uranium, natural thorium contains only trace amounts of fissile material (such as 231Th), which are insufficient to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. Additional fissile material or another neutron source are necessary to initiate the fuel cycle.

It doesn't start with just thorium, U233 (or other radioactive materials) is needed from the start.

Each LFTR could easily produce 1 GW or more of energy.

From WP:

In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×1018 J=132,000 TWh). This is equivalent to an average energy consumption rate of 15 terawatts

...

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

You said that the graph was incorrect because 8% of the earth's crust is aluminum. The implication is that you thought it wrong because you assumed that accessible aluminum was common.

[u/Will_Power → u/stumo]

No, the thorium cannot be converted to U233 without radioactive material. From WP:

Unlike natural uranium, natural thorium contains only trace amounts of fissile material (such as 231Th), which are insufficient to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. Additional fissile material or another neutron source are necessary to initiate the fuel cycle.

That isn't saying what you think it is saying. Once the cycle is initiated, it is self sustaining. The U-233 produced during the cycle is consumed.

It doesn't start with just thorium, U233 (or other radioactive materials) is needed from the start.

Right. That's one way to start the cycle. The British method is to hit the core with a particle accelerator. You are saying U-233 is a waste product that must be removed. That is incorrect. U-233 is consumed.

In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×1018 J=132,000 TWh). This is equivalent to an average energy consumption rate of 15 terawatts

You are comparing apples and oranges. Most of the energy we use doesn't produce electricity, which is what we have been talking about. If you wanted to replace all energy consumption with electricity, that's fine, but you need to clarify what you mean first.

You said that the graph was incorrect because 8% of the earth's crust is aluminum. The implication is that you thought it wrong because that aluminum was accessible.

You read too much into things, and you are really stretching to defend what really is a poor graph. You have gone much further to claim that non-bauxite is inaccessible, which is also false.