Why do some Greens support nuclear?
Giga2
Not worldwide at least. There are thousands of coal-fired power stations
around the world. It would probably take many centuries to replace those
with nukes. But you wouldn't do it because the fuel would run out long
before anyway! And it would all be too late to reduce Co2, if that really is
such a problem. So why do they support it suddenly? Is it because they see
it as a way to hold up renewables, which *is* a solution IMO? Why would they
want to stop the only solution that can work!? Because once this little
problem is solved who is going to care about them and their nightmare
death-cult?
--
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" Richard Feynman
VOTE-FOR-CHRISTIE-IN-2012
The global warming crowd supports nuclear because nuclear does not add
to CO2 levels and more important, CO2 will destroy the entire Earth
within the next 5 years. Of coarse the next 5 years never comes, as it
as always moved up to the next 5 years, which the idiots continue to
do with straight faces..............
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
possible by those reactors.
AGW Facts
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> Why do some Greens support nuclear?
What the bloody fuck is "Greens?"
Tunderbar
They generally don't support nuclear. That has been a long standing
position of the lefty-greenies intended to prevent or slow down any
western development of an nuclear industry, which would work towards
giving the communists an advantage in nuclear development. They remain
opposed to it for the same reasons today.
And if the CO2/AGW scare were in fact true, they'd have to be the
first ones to call for more nuclear energy. But they aren't. Because
they know damned well that 1) agw is a fraud, and 2) their original
goal, and their only acceptable solution, is a wholesale transfer of
wealth from the western democracies to the third world and the old
communist bloc states.
When the goal is actually mitigating CO2 emissions, nuclear is the
best and most obvious solution.
When the goal is wealth transfer, any "solution" other than wealth
transfer is ignored and unacceptable.
Sevenhundred Elves
I support nuclear, not so much for the low CO2 emissions, although
that's a neat side effect, now that you mention it, but mainly because
the so called renewable energy sources, wind, solar geothermal, what
have you, simply will not suffice to replace the dwindling fossil fuels.
Maybe renewable sources of energy will be enough at some time far into
the future when there are fewer humans on Earth, and energy efficiency
has become the primary factor in every human endeavor, but at the
moment, and at the current state of the art of "green" alternatives,
there is nothing except nuclear that can supplant fossil fuels when they
run out.
I'm not saying that nuclear power is clean, environmentally friendly,
perfectly safe or anything like that, nor even that it's a good thing.
Just saying it will be necessary to use it.
S.
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:ivk9kv$98n$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
We have hundreds of years worth of Gas and Coal left!
Peter Franks
Research Gen IV/LFTR nuclear.
T. Keating
wrote:
Doesn't exist physically, only on paper, will likely never exist in
real life. Thorium is not fissle, you need something else (Pu, or
U-235) to generate a decades worth of high neutron flux necessary for
fuel breeding.
Peter Franks
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:22:50 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/2011 2:16 AM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
>>> There is no way that nuclear can help their pretend crisis of Co2 anyway.
>>> Not worldwide at least. There are thousands of coal-fired power stations
>>> around the world. It would probably take many centuries to replace those
>>> with nukes. But you wouldn't do it because the fuel would run out long
>>> before anyway! And it would all be too late to reduce Co2, if that really is
>>> such a problem. So why do they support it suddenly? Is it because they see
>>> it as a way to hold up renewables, which *is* a solution IMO? Why would they
>>> want to stop the only solution that can work!? Because once this little
>>> problem is solved who is going to care about them and their nightmare
>>> death-cult?
>>
>> Research Gen IV/LFTR nuclear.
>
>
> Doesn't exist physically, only on paper
Thanks to the anti-nuke crowd and near-complete moratorium on nuclear power.
> will likely never exist in
> real life.
Same can be said about renewables. So what's your answer now?
T. Keating
wrote:
>On 7/13/2011 9:04 AM, T. Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:22:50 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/13/2011 2:16 AM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
>>>> There is no way that nuclear can help their pretend crisis of Co2 anyway.
>>>> Not worldwide at least. There are thousands of coal-fired power stations
>>>> around the world. It would probably take many centuries to replace those
>>>> with nukes. But you wouldn't do it because the fuel would run out long
>>>> before anyway! And it would all be too late to reduce Co2, if that really is
>>>> such a problem. So why do they support it suddenly? Is it because they see
>>>> it as a way to hold up renewables, which *is* a solution IMO? Why would they
>>>> want to stop the only solution that can work!? Because once this little
>>>> problem is solved who is going to care about them and their nightmare
>>>> death-cult?
>>>
>>> Research Gen IV/LFTR nuclear.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't exist physically, only on paper
>
>Thanks to the anti-nuke crowd and near-complete moratorium on nuclear power.
>
>> will likely never exist in
>> real life.
>
>Same can be said about renewables. So what's your answer now?
Huh? Are you mentally challanged or something?
Hydropower physically exists. Accounting for nearly ~16% of the
world's electrical energy production. (2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
Geothermal physically exists.
Bio mass/waste plants physically exist.. (There is one located ~8
miles due west of my house, it's been there for a couple decades now.)
Wind mills have been in use for several centuries, modern large
scale wind turbines produce energy cheaper than almost any other
source.
PV has been around for 40 years.. (Nearly all orbiting satellites
are 100% dependant on PV). I've got a small(40 watt), 30 year old PV
panel still in use in my backyard, My larger PV panels are now 8
years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#List_of_countries_with_Source_of_Electricity_200
Renewables account for ~18% of the world's electrical production in
2008. That is higher than the 13% share produced by nuclear power.
http://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/pdfs/worldwindenergyreport2010_s.pdf
2010 renewable energy numbers will be even higher. Wind energy
production jumped from 219TWh to 430TWh and now accounts for ~2.5% of
world's electrical energy production.
Giga2
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:ivkd8b$g2s$3...@dont-email.me...
Someone should.
Giga2
are feeling! No. They are actually taking energy *from* the wind. Wow, I
know!
Peter Franks
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:58:22 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/2011 9:04 AM, T. Keating wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:22:50 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/13/2011 2:16 AM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
>>>>> There is no way that nuclear can help their pretend crisis of Co2 anyway.
>>>>> Not worldwide at least. There are thousands of coal-fired power stations
>>>>> around the world. It would probably take many centuries to replace those
>>>>> with nukes. But you wouldn't do it because the fuel would run out long
>>>>> before anyway! And it would all be too late to reduce Co2, if that really is
>>>>> such a problem. So why do they support it suddenly? Is it because they see
>>>>> it as a way to hold up renewables, which *is* a solution IMO? Why would they
>>>>> want to stop the only solution that can work!? Because once this little
>>>>> problem is solved who is going to care about them and their nightmare
>>>>> death-cult?
>>>>
>>>> Research Gen IV/LFTR nuclear.
>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't exist physically, only on paper
>>
>> Thanks to the anti-nuke crowd and near-complete moratorium on nuclear power.
>>
>>> will likely never exist in
>>> real life.
>>
>> Same can be said about renewables. So what's your answer now?
>
> Huh? Are you mentally challanged or something?
Nope. Renewables will likely never exist as generalized baseload in
real life. So let's dump them as well.
Peter Franks
They will never achieve a level to replace baseload, therefore will
never exist as such in real life. According to Keating logic, that is
sufficient justification to dump the technology wholesale. Got a
problem w/ that, take it up w/ him/her/it.
T. Keating
wrote:
Go away El Nino troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#List_of_countries_with_Source_of_Electricity_200
http://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/pdfs/worldwindenergyreport2010_s.pdf
Renewable energy numbers for 2010 will be even higher(~19%).
Wind energy production jumped from 219TWh (1.1% in 2008) to 430TWh
(2.5% in 2010) of the world's electrical energy production.
Sevenhundred Elves
>
> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ivk9kv$98n$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > I support nuclear, not so much for the low CO2 emissions, although
> > that's a neat side effect, now that you mention it, but mainly because
> > the so called renewable energy sources, wind, solar geothermal, what
> > have you, simply will not suffice to replace the dwindling fossil fuels.
>
> We have hundreds of years worth of Gas and Coal left!
That's an astonishing statement. Sources?
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
"Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and
flows above
a.. Coal: 148 years
b.. Oil: 43 years
c.. Natural gas: 61 years
Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic proved
reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)[citation needed]
a.. Coal: 417 years
b.. Oil: 43 years
c.. Natural gas: 167 years"
Guess what the Cult of AGW has used its propaganda on you. And these figures
were the same before the Shale Gas thing really got big.
Giga2
Not sure who Keating is but I am *sure* that is not logic.
T. Keating
wrote:
"The myth of baseload"
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/07/12/1809690/the-myth-of-baseload.html
Peter Franks
Speaks nothing of substance re. wind and PV as a baseload power source.
An editorial heavy on word count, short on content. If you want to pick
some pieces to discuss, quote them. Otherwise, it is just another trash
opinion that under examination completely falls apart.
Unum
Destroyed the whole notion of baseload power as something that
needs "replacement", and the myth that conventional power sources
are somehow more desirable than renewables.
> An editorial heavy on word count, short on content. If you want to pick some
> pieces to discuss, quote them. Otherwise, it is just another trash opinion
> that under examination completely falls apart.
It was an excellent article. Seeing as how you have consistently been
spectacularly uninformed so often in the past we can assume that you
didn't even read it.
Sevenhundred Elves
Those numbers don't spell out hundreds of years except to the most
confused optimist. I managed to find the Wikipedia article you're
quoting,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
and I noticed that you conveniently left out something quite important.
Immediately after the part you quoted above, it says:
"The calculation above assumes that the product could be produced at a
constant level for that number of years and that all of the proved
reserves could be recovered. In reality, consumption of all three
resources has been increasing."
That is quite important to keep in mind, and also that if you propose to
substitute gas and coal for petroleum, as petroleum production dwindles
to nothing in 43 years, you will have to increase the production of coal
and gas, and that means the coal and gas will run out much faster than
the numbers you quote. We're definitely not talking hundreds of years
here.
Wikipedia then goes on to discuss the shape of the graph for the
expected real production, linking to an article about Hubbert peak
theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
which might provide some insight to you.
Some say coal will peak around 2025, some say it has already happened,
depending on whether you take the energy quality of the coal mined into
account.
Anyway, I thought it would be nice to do some calculations with the
Wikipedia data you provided, to see what happens if we go with your
idea, and just substitute coal and gas for oil:
Coal reserves: 4,416 billion barrels (702.1 km^3) of oil equivalent
Gas reserves: 1,161 billion barrels (184.6 km^3) of oil equivalent
Petroleum reserves: 1,119 billion barrels (177.9 km^3) to 1,317 billion
barrels (209.4 km3)
Coal use: 52,000,000 barrels (8,300,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day,
or 19 billion barrels (3 km^3) per year
Gas use: 19,000,000 barrels (3,000,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day, or
6.9 billion barrels (1.1 km^3) per year.
Petroleum use: 84,000,000 barrels per day (13,400,000 m3/d), or 31
billion barrels (4.89 km^3) per year.
The Wikipedia numbers for how long the oil will last, are built on the
simplified (or simplistic, or even simpleton) notion that oil is
produced in the same volume every year, the same volume as right now,
until production suddenly stops completely after 43 years, when the
reserves are drained.
In order to make a model to match expected events a little better than
that, but still very simple (a complex model would be silly, since the
data for the reserves consist of vague approximations and guesstimates),
let's assume that the amount of oil pumped every year decreases
linearly. That means it will last longer than 43 years. As a crude
approximation of Hubbert's bell curve, let's say it would take 80 years
before the very last drop of oil is consumed.
After these 80 years, coal and gas will be used in place of all the oil,
and during those 80 years, an amount of coal and gas equal to our
current reserves of oil will have been used (linearity assumed, see
diagram).
--------------------------------- Level of oil use today
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ Gas and coal used as
\ substitute for petroleum
\
\
\
Petroleum \
use \
\
\
\
\
-------------------------------------
| |
2011 2091
This means that after 80 years, there would be (702.1+184.6-177.9)km^3,
or 708.8 km^3 oil equivalents of gas and coal left, if there hadn't been
any consumption of coal and gas apart from that. When we subtract the
normal annual consumption of gas and coal over 80 years, we get a
remaining reserve of (708.8 - 80*(3+1.1))km^3, which computes to 380.8
cubic kilometers of oil equivalent.
How long will that last? Let's calculate it based on a steady use of
energy, at today's level, which is 3+1.1+4.89 or roughly 9 km^3 of oil
equivalent per year. A simple division shows that it will take another
42 years to use up all those 381 cubic kilometers of oil equivalent, if
we can get it out of the ground at a constant rate, the same as today.
Of course we can't do that, so let's do as we did for the oil, and
double the number. Then we get approximately another 80 years to add to
the previous ones, which neans it will take us at most 160 years to use
up all the reserves of fossil fuels. Every drop of oil, every little
piece of coal and every whiff of gas.
There is, however, a HUGE error in my calculations: I've assumed a
steady state energy use, without consideration for the constant increase
in energy consumtion that's going on everywhere. Western industrialized
society as it is today, is built on growth, and as China and India are
industrializing and emerging as first world powers, they too will use a
steadily increasing amount of energy.
So, how to fix that error? Well, as it turns out, there is a
mathematical formula for how long it will take for a finite resourse
which is consumed at an exponential rate to expire.
Professor Emeritus Al Bartlett (University of Colorado at Boulder)
describes and proves the formula here:
http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_appendix.html
The formula is
Te=(1/k)*ln(k*R/r0+1)
where:
Te is the time in years before expiry
k is the fractional growth per year
r0 is the amount of consumption at the beginning
R is the amount of the resource
ln is the natural logarithm of what's inside the following parenthesis
So if we have a k of 0.01, i.e. 1% annual increase in production,
and let R be all the fossil energy sources combined, or 1064.6 km^3 of
oil equivalent, and r0 is 9 km^3/yr, then we see, by the above formula,
that
Te=(1/0.01)*ln(0.01*1064.6/9+1) = 78 years
If you try it out with larger rates than a measly 1%, (you may find it
interesting to learn that the Chinese have lately been increasing the
output from their coal mines with 5% annually) you quickly get even
scarier figures. So I suggest that if YOU use this formula, use the most
optimistic values you can find for the amount of available resources, or
you'll be scared out of your wits.
Professor Bartlett says about this expression: "Imagine that the rate of
consumption of a resource grows at a constant rate until the last of the
resource is consumed, whereupon the rate of consumption falls abruptly
to zero."
I admit there is one problem with using this formula, because as a
resource dwindles, it won't be possible (for instance in the real,
physical world of coal mining, where you have to locate and dig up your
resources) to use the last of the resource at the same rate as the major
part of it. Consumption won't go to zero abruptly, first it will dwindle
for a while. But apart from that small fault, it's a most useful
expression.
S.
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
417 years is not hundreds of years? As I also said regards gas this was
before the Shale Gas Boom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas#Economics
>
> Wikipedia then goes on to discuss the shape of the graph for the
> expected real production, linking to an article about Hubbert peak
> theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
> which might provide some insight to you.
>
> Some say coal will peak around 2025, some say it has already happened,
> depending on whether you take the energy quality of the coal mined into
> account.
>
> Anyway, I thought it would be nice to do some calculations with the
> Wikipedia data you provided, to see what happens if we go with your
> idea, and just substitute coal and gas for oil:
My idea is to use renewables to produce LNG or electricity to use for
transport.
Long before then renewables will have taken over, and then fusion probably.
Giga2
"T. Keating" <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:oe6s1712l5ee0g7se...@4ax.com...
Excellent article. I wonder if they are actually turning of wind-turbines in
the UK because of this issue of *too much* power. So the power dispachers
have their big 'baseload' plants and they are told by managers to favour
them. This would explain why the turbines are so often not even turning here
in the UK when it is windy. They really should use this renewable energy
first but of course their corporate interests are not aligned with that. And
the regulators don't seem to be ready yet to force them to do the right
thing by the population.
Giga2
Doh! Did yo actually read it? Of course not.
> An editorial heavy on word count, short on content.
5 minutes of your valuable time huh! 2000 words is a fairly normal length
for an article!
>If you want to pick some pieces to discuss, quote them. Otherwise, it is
>just another trash opinion that under examination completely falls apart.
Yeah, the first 2100 words.
Peter Franks
Yes.
Sevenhundred Elves
417 years is absurd; it must come from a miscalculation. When talking
about topics like this, we should be careful to use verified and actual
numbers from only the best sources, since there are so many spin
doctors, shills and deluded persons who try to spread false facts
around.
The most authoritative numbers I've been able to find are those compiled
by the World Energy Council (WEC).
The World Energy Council, in its report Survey of Energy Resources 2010,
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
says the following about the amounts of coal used:
"Around 5.8 billion tonnes of hard coal and 953
million tonnes of brown coal were used worldwide
in 2008. Since 2000, global coal consumption has
grown faster than any other fuel at 4.9% per
year. The five largest coal users - China, USA,
India, Japan and Russia - account for around 72%
of total global coal use."
Add up both kinds of coal, and what you get 6.753 billion tonnes.
And here's what the WEC says, in the same report, about global coal
reserves:
"Coal: proved recoverable reserves at end-2008 (million tonnes) 860 938"
Now I urge you to take out your calculator and do the division:
860.938 billion tonnes / 6.753 billion tonnes per year = 127.5 years
That's not hundreds of years, far from it.
The next step, so often omitted in calculations like this, is to see how
these reserves will fare when the consumption is growing at 4.9 percent
annually. We'll use the formula provided by Professor Bartlett at
http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_appendix.html
The formula is
Te=(1/k)*ln(k*R/r0+1)
where:
Te is the time in years before expiry
k is the fractional growth per year
r0 is the amount of consumption at the beginning
R is the amount of the resource
ln is the natural logarithm of what's inside the following parenthesis
Stick the WEC numbers into that equation, and you get
Te=(1/0.049)*ln(0.049*860.938/6.753+1) = 40.4 years
Forty years of coal left. I know it sounds surprisingly little, but such
is the power of calculations with compound interest. You can ask any one
of your banker friends (or a scientist friend, of course) about the
validity of the formula and he will not be able to find a flaw with it.
I'm sorry to say that your "hundreds of years" was a long way off the
mark. I mean, I am really very, very sorry about this whole miserable
situation with the fossil fuels. I would have loved it if you were
right.
> My idea is to use renewables to produce LNG or electricity to use for
> transport.
Yes, I support that. It will have to be done. We will have to use every
kind of energy we can get our hands on to meet the demands of
agriculture, transport and production.
> > Coal reserves: 4,416 billion barrels (702.1 km^3) of oil equivalent
.. <snipped some of my own rant>
> > After these 80 years, coal and gas will be used in place of all the oil,
> > and during those 80 years, an amount of coal and gas equal to our
> > current reserves of oil will have been used (linearity assumed, see
> > diagram).
>
> Long before then renewables will have taken over, and then fusion probably.
I'm all for renewables, but I'm not sure the renewables are quite up to
the task all by themselves. But since many parts of the world won't be
able to build nuclear powerplants in sufficient numbers in the short
time of fossil fuel that's left, we will have to use the renewables,
too, or starve. Fusion? Forty years ago, or thereabouts, a nuclear
scientist told me there would be fusion power within the next twenty
years. Sometimes they still say that, except they don't seem quite so
certain about it any more.
S.
Sevenhundred Elves
> As I also said regards gas this was
> before the Shale Gas Boom.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas#Economics
I will look into that.
S.
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
Someone has got their figures wrong.
> The next step, so often omitted in calculations like this, is to see how
> these reserves will fare when the consumption is growing at 4.9 percent
> annually. We'll use the formula provided by Professor Bartlett at
> http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_appendix.html
>
> The formula is
>
> Te=(1/k)*ln(k*R/r0+1)
5% rule of 72, 14.4 years at 5% leads to 100% or a doubling if compounded.
>
> where:
>
> Te is the time in years before expiry
> k is the fractional growth per year
> r0 is the amount of consumption at the beginning
> R is the amount of the resource
> ln is the natural logarithm of what's inside the following parenthesis
>
> Stick the WEC numbers into that equation, and you get
>
> Te=(1/0.049)*ln(0.049*860.938/6.753+1) = 40.4 years
>
> Forty years of coal left. I know it sounds surprisingly little, but such
> is the power of calculations with compound interest. You can ask any one
> of your banker friends (or a scientist friend, of course) about the
> validity of the formula and he will not be able to find a flaw with it.
>
> I'm sorry to say that your "hundreds of years" was a long way off the
> mark. I mean, I am really very, very sorry about this whole miserable
> situation with the fossil fuels. I would have loved it if you were
> right.
You don't believe your own figures. You really think that wiki is so far out
400years, no 40 years!!!?? Come on!
>
>> My idea is to use renewables to produce LNG or electricity to use for
>> transport.
>
> Yes, I support that. It will have to be done. We will have to use every
> kind of energy we can get our hands on to meet the demands of
> agriculture, transport and production.
>
>> > Coal reserves: 4,416 billion barrels (702.1 km^3) of oil equivalent
> .. <snipped some of my own rant>
>> > After these 80 years, coal and gas will be used in place of all the
>> > oil,
>> > and during those 80 years, an amount of coal and gas equal to our
>> > current reserves of oil will have been used (linearity assumed, see
>> > diagram).
>>
>> Long before then renewables will have taken over, and then fusion
>> probably.
>
> I'm all for renewables, but I'm not sure the renewables are quite up to
> the task all by themselves. But since many parts of the world won't be
> able to build nuclear powerplants in sufficient numbers in the short
> time of fossil fuel that's left, we will have to use the renewables,
> too, or starve. Fusion? Forty years ago, or thereabouts, a nuclear
> scientist told me there would be fusion power within the next twenty
> years. Sometimes they still say that, except they don't seem quite so
> certain about it any more.
>
Then we seem to be very much in agreement. In which case in a way I hope
*you* are right about fossil fuels running out so quickly.
Sevenhundred Elves
I'm glad that we agree on that, as long as you don't think it's me :)
The numbers are the official numbers from WEC's latest report. Read it
yourself:
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
I can't see why the WEC should tell lies about this, when nations and
international business depend on them for correct numbers. Read more
about the World Energy Council here:
http://www.worldenergy.org/
> > The next step, so often omitted in calculations like this, is to see how
> > these reserves will fare when the consumption is growing at 4.9 percent
> > annually. We'll use the formula provided by Professor Bartlett at
> > http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_appendix.html
> >
> > The formula is
> >
> > Te=(1/k)*ln(k*R/r0+1)
>
> 5% rule of 72, 14.4 years at 5% leads to 100% or a doubling if compounded.
Yes, that's right, after about 14.4 years, the annual coal production
doubles, if we assume an annual growth rate of 5%. But I take what you
say here to mean that you have some doubt about the validity or method
of my calculation. So let's see if we get the same number of years using
the more traditional accounting method of putting down the annual
numbers in a table, one row per year. Please check that each amount of
coal taken away every year really is 4.9% greater than the preceding
year, no more, no less, so you see for yourself that I'm not trying to
trick you. (I produced the table with a spreadsheet program, I didn't
calculate it manually, so it should check out just fine.)
Year Amount Amount left
taken in reserves
away
0 860.938
1 6.753 854.185
2 7.084 847.101
3 7.431 839.670
4 7.795 831.875
5 8.177 823.698
6 8.578 815.120
7 8.998 806.122
8 9.439 796.683
9 9.901 786.782
10 10.387 776.395
11 10.896 765.499
12 11.429 754.070
13 11.990 742.080
14 12.577 729.503
15 13.193 716.310
16 13.840 702.470
17 14.518 687.952
18 15.229 672.723
19 15.976 656.747
20 16.758 639.989
21 17.579 622.410
22 18.441 603.969
23 19.344 584.624
24 20.292 564.332
25 21.287 543.045
26 22.330 520.715
27 23.424 497.291
28 24.572 472.720
29 25.776 446.944
30 27.039 419.905
31 28.364 391.542
32 29.753 361.788
33 31.211 330.577
34 32.741 297.836
35 34.345 263.491
36 36.028 227.463
37 37.793 189.670
38 39.645 150.025
39 41.588 108.437
40 43.626 64.812
41 45.763 19.049
Again it seems that after a little more than 40 years, all the coal will
be used up. Do you find this easy-to-read table convincing enough? This
is what will happen to the global coal reserves in forty years,
asssuming the current annual growth in coal production (4.9%) will
remain steady, and not increase (as I'm afraid it will once oil runs
out).
> > where:
> >
> > Te is the time in years before expiry
> > k is the fractional growth per year
> > r0 is the amount of consumption at the beginning
> > R is the amount of the resource
> > ln is the natural logarithm of what's inside the following parenthesis
> >
> > Stick the WEC numbers into that equation, and you get
> >
> > Te=(1/0.049)*ln(0.049*860.938/6.753+1) = 40.4 years
> >
> > Forty years of coal left. I know it sounds surprisingly little, but such
> > is the power of calculations with compound interest. You can ask any one
> > of your banker friends (or a scientist friend, of course) about the
> > validity of the formula and he will not be able to find a flaw with it.
> >
> > I'm sorry to say that your "hundreds of years" was a long way off the
> > mark. I mean, I am really very, very sorry about this whole miserable
> > situation with the fossil fuels. I would have loved it if you were
> > right.
>
> You don't believe your own figures. You really think that wiki is so far out
> 400years, no 40 years!!!?? Come on!
I do believe that the calculated figures are reasonably accurate, but
not that they will predict the future exactly. Much may happen in forty
years.
And yes, the Wikipedia (in that paragraph) is wrong by an order of
magnitude, which is why I called that number absurd. I also noticed that
the particular paragraph in Wikipedia was marked with "[citation
needed]". Also, you do realize that anyone may write anything in the
Wikipedia, don't you? This means that Wikipedia is often a good starting
point for further research, but it's not reliable enough to be used as
source material in a serious discussion about controversial subjects.
> > I'm all for renewables, but I'm not sure the renewables are quite up to
> > the task all by themselves. But since many parts of the world won't be
> > able to build nuclear powerplants in sufficient numbers in the short
> > time of fossil fuel that's left, we will have to use the renewables,
> > too, or starve. Fusion? Forty years ago, or thereabouts, a nuclear
> > scientist told me there would be fusion power within the next twenty
> > years. Sometimes they still say that, except they don't seem quite so
> > certain about it any more.
> >
> Then we seem to be very much in agreement. In which case in a way I hope
> *you* are right about fossil fuels running out so quickly.
What? Would you wish us to run out of energy? Do I misunderstand you
somehow?
S.
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
Yes. That is quite scary actually.
>This
> is what will happen to the global coal reserves in forty years,
> asssuming the current annual growth in coal production (4.9%) will
> remain steady, and not increase (as I'm afraid it will once oil runs
> out).
>
Will oil run out first!? Of course they are not really interchangeable
fuels.
>
>> > where:
>> >
>> > Te is the time in years before expiry
>> > k is the fractional growth per year
>> > r0 is the amount of consumption at the beginning
>> > R is the amount of the resource
>> > ln is the natural logarithm of what's inside the following parenthesis
>> >
>> > Stick the WEC numbers into that equation, and you get
>> >
>> > Te=(1/0.049)*ln(0.049*860.938/6.753+1) = 40.4 years
>> >
>> > Forty years of coal left. I know it sounds surprisingly little, but
>> > such
>> > is the power of calculations with compound interest. You can ask any
>> > one
>> > of your banker friends (or a scientist friend, of course) about the
>> > validity of the formula and he will not be able to find a flaw with it.
>> >
>> > I'm sorry to say that your "hundreds of years" was a long way off the
>> > mark. I mean, I am really very, very sorry about this whole miserable
>> > situation with the fossil fuels. I would have loved it if you were
>> > right.
>>
>> You don't believe your own figures. You really think that wiki is so far
>> out
>> 400years, no 40 years!!!?? Come on!
>
> I do believe that the calculated figures are reasonably accurate, but
> not that they will predict the future exactly. Much may happen in forty
> years.
I suppose the most optimistic estimates of coal reserves assume a certain
amount of new discoveries, which is reasonable, but also difficult, very
difficult, to estimate. However they are about 2.5 times the reserve
estimate you used in your table. I wonder how many years this would add?
Probably only 10 or 20.
>
> And yes, the Wikipedia (in that paragraph) is wrong by an order of
> magnitude, which is why I called that number absurd. I also noticed that
> the particular paragraph in Wikipedia was marked with "[citation
> needed]". Also, you do realize that anyone may write anything in the
> Wikipedia, don't you? This means that Wikipedia is often a good starting
> point for further research, but it's not reliable enough to be used as
> source material in a serious discussion about controversial subjects.
Sure.
>
>> > I'm all for renewables, but I'm not sure the renewables are quite up to
>> > the task all by themselves. But since many parts of the world won't be
>> > able to build nuclear powerplants in sufficient numbers in the short
>> > time of fossil fuel that's left, we will have to use the renewables,
>> > too, or starve. Fusion? Forty years ago, or thereabouts, a nuclear
>> > scientist told me there would be fusion power within the next twenty
>> > years. Sometimes they still say that, except they don't seem quite so
>> > certain about it any more.
>> >
>> Then we seem to be very much in agreement. In which case in a way I hope
>> *you* are right about fossil fuels running out so quickly.
>
> What? Would you wish us to run out of energy? Do I misunderstand you
> somehow?
>
I think we need to go over to renewables.
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
"Shell has unveiled plans to build the world's first floating liquefied
natural gas (FLNG) platform. The 600,000-tonne behemoth - the world's
biggest "ship" - will be sited off the coast of Australia. But how will it
work?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13709293
Sevenhundred Elves
>
> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ivnsk4$lvo$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I think so too. But maybe more reserves will be found, or maybe the
growth will be less than the current 4.9%. Both things would make the
coal last a little longer.
> >This
> > is what will happen to the global coal reserves in forty years,
> > asssuming the current annual growth in coal production (4.9%) will
> > remain steady, and not increase (as I'm afraid it will once oil runs
> > out).
> >
>
> Will oil run out first!? Of course they are not really interchangeable
> fuels.
Hmm, well, I don't really KNOW, that, as such, there just seems to be a
general assumption that we'll run out of oil before we run out of coal,
but I haven't actually tried to calculate it. But I'm not stopping you
from calculating it. You need to have a number for the known reserves,
the amount pumped at the starting year, and the expected annual growth
in oil production in percent. Then just feed it into the formula, and
the formula into your calculator.
> I suppose the most optimistic estimates of coal reserves assume a certain
> amount of new discoveries, which is reasonable, but also difficult, very
> difficult, to estimate. However they are about 2.5 times the reserve
> estimate you used in your table. I wonder how many years this would add?
> Probably only 10 or 20.
The WEC numbers are only about proven, recoverable reserves. There
doesn't seem to be much discovery of new coal reserves going on,
however. But let's suppose anyway that there's twice as much in the
reserves than is known at the moment. So let's calculate it for twice
the amount of the 861 billion tonnes that we know exist. That would make
it 1722 billion tonnes. Using the formula (it's really more convenient
to use the formula than making tables in spreadsheets) we get
Te=(1/0.049)*ln(0.049*1722/6.753+1) = 53.1 years.
The geometric progression (which is what you have in "exponential
growth" and "compound interest") really has an awful power when it comes
to exhausting finite resources. But if growth rate was to be less than
the current 4.9%, you'd get a more positive result.
> I think we need to go over to renewables.
Yes, that will be necessary. One day, when we have consumed all the
finite energy reserves, it will be the only option. But if this is to
happen suddenly, without warning, and without planning for it, the human
suffering will be worse than I like to think about.
S.
Sevenhundred Elves
> >
> This kind of technology could also greatly increase gas 'reserves'.
>
> "Shell has unveiled plans to build the world's first floating liquefied
> natural gas (FLNG) platform. The 600,000-tonne behemoth - the world's
> biggest "ship" - will be sited off the coast of Australia. But how will it
> work?"
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13709293
Quoting the article: "The project, estimated to cost between $8bn (Ł5bn)
and $15bn (Ł9.5bn), could provide 3.6 million tonnes of gas a year."
Just to put the enterprise in perspective: The total production of
natural gas in 2008 was 3840.7 billion cubic metres.
In order to compare the numbers, let's see what volume the 3.6 million
tonnes of LNG would expand to, so we can compare the numbers. We find it
equals 3.6 million times 1500 cubic meters gaseous methane (because a
ton of methane at 20 degrees celsius and atmospheric pressure equals
1500 cubic metres), so the platform could be estimated to provide 5.4
billion cubic meters per year.
Now 5.4 is not a very large fraction of 3840.7. I'm not saying there's
no reason for enthusiasm, but it's not like this platform is going to
save the world from its energy crisis all by itself. Hundreds of them,
perhaps. We'll see how this one works out.
S.
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
Yes amazing, hard to believe that a doubling of reserves makes such little
difference. Of course another factor is that as coal starts to become more
scarce the price will rise and demand will reduce, so there will be more of
a gradual curve, eventually.
>
>> I think we need to go over to renewables.
>
> Yes, that will be necessary. One day, when we have consumed all the
> finite energy reserves, it will be the only option. But if this is to
> happen suddenly, without warning, and without planning for it, the human
> suffering will be worse than I like to think about.
>
We *are* going over to renewables right now. Its is happening, and quick.
Giga2
"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> removetheseandaddmatthe end wrote:
>> >
>> This kind of technology could also greatly increase gas 'reserves'.
>>
>> "Shell has unveiled plans to build the world's first floating liquefied
>> natural gas (FLNG) platform. The 600,000-tonne behemoth - the world's
>> biggest "ship" - will be sited off the coast of Australia. But how will
>> it
>> work?"
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13709293
>
>
> and $15bn (£9.5bn), could provide 3.6 million tonnes of gas a year."
>
> Just to put the enterprise in perspective: The total production of
> natural gas in 2008 was 3840.7 billion cubic metres.
>
> In order to compare the numbers, let's see what volume the 3.6 million
> tonnes of LNG would expand to, so we can compare the numbers. We find it
> equals 3.6 million times 1500 cubic meters gaseous methane (because a
> ton of methane at 20 degrees celsius and atmospheric pressure equals
> 1500 cubic metres), so the platform could be estimated to provide 5.4
> billion cubic meters per year.
>
> Now 5.4 is not a very large fraction of 3840.7. I'm not saying there's
> no reason for enthusiasm, but it's not like this platform is going to
> save the world from its energy crisis all by itself. Hundreds of them,
> perhaps. We'll see how this one works out.
>