When Science is a Conveyor of Bad News
Discussion
The nuclear future is not all about Uranium or Plutonium, a lot of near future possibility in Thorium reactors. Thorium mineral is plentiful and easily extracted. There are already several thorium reactors already up and running in India and China, with good results shown in pebble bed type reactors and more conventional type reactors.
mrmr96 said:
Why?
I listed my understanding of the issues faced when scaling fission above. Fusion might be a viable energy source at some point but we will need long before it is ready. We need it up and running by now really or at least in the design / engineering / testing stage not just theoretical.
I have also explained the issues I see us facing in making any form of nuclear energy meet our transportation needs.
ewenm said:
So what is your solution? Your posts on this thread seem to indicate you believe all hope is lost, that the only solution is massive depopulation. I'm less negative about it. Human ingenuity is our greatest asset.
As I said, there isn't always an acceptable solution. I can't see one in this case personally. I think the outcome will be significant depopulation over time but couldn't call that a solution!IainT said:
As a species we've constantly adapted to changes in environment and resources with our innate ingenuity we have, so far, answered every question posed to our survival.
What he said. Though sometimes through a large reduction in our population.The human race will not die out if we suddenly turn of the electricity, and have no cars etc. Many individuals would die. But as a species we'd adapt to the new setup and continue. There will have to be no viable food or shelter to kill off the human race. And that seems unlikely.
Munter said:
What he said. Though sometimes through a large reduction in our population.
The human race will not die out if we suddenly turn of the electricity, and have no cars etc. Many individuals would die. But as a species we'd adapt to the new setup and continue. There will have to be no viable food or shelter to kill off the human race. And that seems unlikely.
Hang on there! Who mentioned human extinction!? The human race will not die out if we suddenly turn of the electricity, and have no cars etc. Many individuals would die. But as a species we'd adapt to the new setup and continue. There will have to be no viable food or shelter to kill off the human race. And that seems unlikely.
I agree we will make a successful transition to a smaller population. I think considerably smaller. Humanity will continue!
Interesting views Jinx.
Data shows that oil extraction rates have plateaued since 2005, that’s fact. Only my opinion but I think this indicates ‘Peak Oil’.
Not sure why we should rate ourselves against other species, we all have equal right to be here.
Jinx said:
Nonsense - growth will slow down as the developing countries become developed but there will still be growth (unless global cooling really kicks in soon).
Do you see population of 7 to 9 billion living at or close-to our current Western standards of living and energy consumption?Jinx said:
Our chief energy source has been and always will be the sun. Our secondary mobility fuel source is not finite - it's replacment just takes a long time. Peak oil is a lie and hasn't happened yet.
By a long time you’re referring to millions of years! Are you inferring that fossil fuels are a renewable source of energy?!Data shows that oil extraction rates have plateaued since 2005, that’s fact. Only my opinion but I think this indicates ‘Peak Oil’.
Jinx said:
The stone age didn't end because of lack of stone.
Sure, so what will power agriculture in the next ‘age’?Jinx said:
Good - main test of a species success is its numbers.
It’s intriguing that you see population growth as a good thing. I see a key measure of success of a generation (of any species) as whether the long-term prospects of the planet and all its inhabitants were improved or worsened by its actions. I don't think recent generations of humans have done well on that front.Not sure why we should rate ourselves against other species, we all have equal right to be here.
Jinx said:
Intellectual cowardice. Yes we'll have to take the Earth with us (atmosphere/biosphere) where-ever we go but that's just the price we pay. I'm sure cybernetics and genetic manipulation will help.
Do you envision billions of people leaving the Earth or just a lucky few? Where will those leaving be heading?Jinx said:
(In relation to climate change) Oh grow up. Game theory puts paid to that nonsense even without leaving the comfort of your computer room (and without checking outside the window.)
I won’t get into the climate change debate here, there’s a massive thread devoted to it. I included that bullet for completeness. I personally do believe in man-made climate change but see resource depletion as our primary concern.Edited by T S Magnum on Friday 19th October 16:24
We cram ourselves into tiny area's as the big spaces are "owned" by someone else. We squeeze ourselves into small metal tubes that can travel at hundreds of miles an hour to skip over these wide empty places to another cramped crowded space. We complain of over population because we can't get a seat on a crowded metal tube and don't see the discrepency in the length of the tube and the lenght of the track. They'll tell you we are over populated and that the wells running dry so they can charge you more for less space and less water. Over population is a myth - as is the scarcity of resources. The is plenty of oil - but the less they pump out the more they can charge.
T S Magnum said:
I agree we will make a successful transition to a smaller population. I think considerably smaller. Humanity will continue!
The fastest way (barring asteroid, pandemic, world war) to a smaller population is through increased global wealth and healthcare. One of the most interesting stats that came out of the recent '7 billionth human' hooey was the projected population curve. If development continues and the decrease in poverty continues then the world population will peak just over 9bn and then drop.Jinx said:
We cram ourselves into tiny area's as the big spaces are "owned" by someone else. We squeeze ourselves into small metal tubes that can travel at hundreds of miles an hour to skip over these wide empty places to another cramped crowded space. We complain of over population because we can't get a seat on a crowded metal tube and don't see the discrepency in the length of the tube and the lenght of the track. They'll tell you we are over populated and that the wells running dry so they can charge you more for less space and less water. Over population is a myth - as is the scarcity of resources. The is plenty of oil - but the less they pump out the more they can charge.
I think you're describing population density and how low it still is, if averaged over the entire habitable land area. Of course I would agree with that - cover the planet with an urban area of Cairo's population density and we can fit a LOT of people on Earth (simple calc. indicates around 1300 billion people).In my view, our current overpopulation relates to our resource use exceeding Earth's sustainable carrying capacity. This is a commonly accepted fact. Sure, as-yet underdeveloped technologies may (hopefully) come along and provide us with new sources of energy, food, water etc. We then wouldn't be overpopulated. I think this is unlikely given the required timeframe.
Like Malthus, I think we will fall back to a sustainable population by decreasing our numbers in lots of unpleasant ways. As he said in 1798 (when our population was 1 billion):
"Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist that the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence, that population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and, that the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."
Edited by T S Magnum on Monday 22 October 13:12
IainT said:
The fastest way (barring asteroid, pandemic, world war) to a smaller population is through increased global wealth and healthcare. One of the most interesting stats that came out of the recent '7 billionth human' hooey was the projected population curve. If development continues and the decrease in poverty continues then the world population will peak just over 9bn and then drop.
I agree, I just worry that populations also use a lot more energy per capita when they become 'developed' (some stats below). I also worry if the optimistic figure of 9 billion often quoted isn't still too high. Whatever numbers we end up at, we're still consuming non-renewable resources at a historically incredible rate.Per capita energy use 2006 (million Btu), source US EIA.
US........ 334.6
UK........ 161.7
China...... 56.2
Brazil..... 51.2
India...... 15.9
Tanzania.... 2.1
T S Magnum said:
As I understand it, much like oil, the best reserves of uranium are already gone and a production peak is not far away (2040ish).
To replace fossil fuels we'd need to build hundreds if not thousands of full size nuclear plants. Where is the funding, resources, political will, public will going to come from for that?
There would be so many reactors everywhere that incidents like Fukushima would happen with unpleasant regularity.
Don't want to think about all the horrific waste products that need disposal.
In order; there's still quite a bit of uranium out there, there's just no need to mine it at the moment as there's not a lot of call for the stuff.To replace fossil fuels we'd need to build hundreds if not thousands of full size nuclear plants. Where is the funding, resources, political will, public will going to come from for that?
There would be so many reactors everywhere that incidents like Fukushima would happen with unpleasant regularity.
Don't want to think about all the horrific waste products that need disposal.
Uranium (as discussed) is not the only fuel that could be used for a fission reactor.
Regarding the funding/public/political will; when the lights start going out and eastenders street is not available, you'll be amazed what the nimbys will allow.
Fukushima is an old plant and by definition not a modern design. It took an earthquake that was larger than the designed maximum, and then a tidal wave that was larger than the design maximum. And even then, it did not explode. Please detail the number of deaths caused by the incident at fukushima due to radiological contamination (rather than bits of building dropping on them). Now compare that number with the number of people killed coal mining every year.
Waste disposal is a concern, although there are various reactor types that may produce more useful by products (like more fuel).
No doubt mass adoption of fission power would lead to other issues. No doubt they will be solved.
T S Magnum said:
As I understand it, much like oil, the best reserves of uranium are already gone and a production peak is not far away (2040ish).
Total non issue. If uranium prices go over about $700 per kilo (i.e. a bit more than triple) then we'll just extract it from seawater, go back to building fast breeder reactors or reprocess more fuel. The actual fuel is such a small part of the cost of running a reactor that it'll make very little difference to the economics.mrmr96 said:
We have nuclear energy. I don't think we're going to run out of energy any time soon if we employ that.
The issue is not the quantity of energy but the cost of the energy!We have the technology to generate an almost infinite amount of usefull energy, via a multitude of sources, but due to the lack of investment (and to some degree the success of the anti-nuclear campaigners) over the last 30 years, the cost to now replace fossil fuel energy sources is looking to be crippling, even to the relatively affluent 1st world nations!
Jinx said:
I think you better check up where that little "factoid" comes from and from whom.
Why the Trolling? By factoid do you mean "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact"?
Purely as an example, current world oil consumption is fact, see here or many other sources.
Where do you get your comforting, we're all good, roll on population 10 billion, we'll all fly to another planet no probs facts?
T S Magnum said:
Why the Trolling?
By factoid do you mean "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact"?
Purely as an example, current world oil consumption is fact, see here or many other sources.
Where do you get your comforting, we're all good, roll on population 10 billion, we'll all fly to another planet no probs facts?
The over population meme has been running since the 1700's in one form or another. The benefactors of this meme are those in a position take advantage if the meme is believed and is false. Given as it has been proven false for over 300 years why would I start to believe it now? By factoid do you mean "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact"?
Purely as an example, current world oil consumption is fact, see here or many other sources.
Where do you get your comforting, we're all good, roll on population 10 billion, we'll all fly to another planet no probs facts?
If over population and over consumption was truly a threat then where are the food wars? Also our understanding of "fossil fuel" may also be incorrect if abiotic oil is source of our hydrocarbons Abiotic oil and Nature geoscience
So where is my comfort? I am one of the most cynical people around (in Edward de Bono terms I am the model-T of the thinking hats) - but on this subject my cynicism muscle is twitching at those who are spreading the over-population message; and I don't see many of them cutting down in consumption or refraining from multiplying.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff