Uranium Supply Pt 2

[yesplease]

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?

P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.

[TonyPrep]

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?

You rail against Albert Bartlett because you think he believes in infinite time for using resources and now here you are, arguing that humans may survive the end of the solar system.

What a contrary person you are.

[EnergyUnlimited]

P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.

That's easy.
At some point it will either evaluate into more (or less...) intelligent species or as an alternative it will go extinct.

In any case it will not outlive Solar System.

[yesplease]

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?

You rail against Albert Bartlett because you think he believes in infinite time for using resources and now here you are, arguing that humans may survive the end of the solar system.

What a contrary person you are.

Nope. Try again. Stating I, and likely you IMO, don't know if we will survive, is not the same as stating we will survive. Otoh, assuming we have infinite time, in order to use resources forever, is quite cornucopian. If whatshisfuzz had stated that using a certain amount given whatever would allow for resource use for a very long time, up to when the Earth as a sustainable habitat for humans/whatever they change into, then sure... But they were very specific regarding the wording/etc...

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.

That's easy.
At some point it will either evaluate into more (or less...) intelligent species or as an alternative it will go extinct.

In any case it will not outlive Solar System.

If you're basing it off that then sure, but it's kinda arbitrary given that it depends on our classification. For instance, if we choose sufficiently strict criteria, we could evaluate within the next few years. In any event, what will happen to the human race, or what we view as the descendants of that race, that far into the future, is unpossible to know AFAIK.

[TonyPrep]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand? All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

I have no idea why you'd argue that point anyway. The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.

[yesplease]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future. The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future. If you have significant evidence that we will not outlast the solar system, whatever that means, I would like to see it.

The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.

Depends. What do you mean by demise of the solar system you speak of?

[TonyPrep]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%". It was poetic licence, for effect. However, it is simply redundant, and doesn't misrepresent what you said. Unless, of course, that you think less than 100 % accurate is the same as accurate, but, knowing you, I doubt that. So why are you putting so much emphasis on a bit of effect? You argued against my reasonable statement that the human species would not outlive the solar system. I claimed that it was reasonable, not a 100% mathematical certainty. So why go on about what can be accurately predicted?

All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future.

There you go again with "accurate", after berating me for denying accuracy.

The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future.

Uh? Of course it's reasonable for me to say what I said. It may not be a certainty, but it is reasonable. You appear not to be arguing with it, in specific terms (i.e. you deliberately do not predict that our species will outlast the solar system), but get hot under the collar about a reasonable statement to the contrary.

The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.

Depends. What do you mean by demise of the solar system you speak of?

Demise: a cessation of existence. Don't you have a dictionary or can you honestly not fit one of the meanings to the context of my post? Also, could you really not see that I was referring to the solar system in which you live? After all, the subject was the longevity of the human species.

[yesplease]

All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.

I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".

How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means

the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.

And since there is no degree specified, any quantity isn't redundant.

However, it is simply redundant, and doesn't misrepresent what you said. Unless, of course, that you think less than 100 % accurate is the same as accurate, but, knowing you, I doubt that.

Like I stated, above, accuracy does not imply a degree. Since you didn't understand this, according to a definition of the word, you hardly seem to know me. Given how little you "know" of someone who you communicate with, I wonder if you'll have any accurate information as to the fate of humanity and the solar system.

You argued against my reasonable statement that the human species would not outlive the solar system. I claimed that it was reasonable, not a 100% mathematical certainty. So why go on about what can be accurately predicted?

Your statement is not reasonable unless you have some way of predicting the future. That is what I am stating. There need not be 100% accuracy, but considering that no one has predicted the future over much smaller time periods with even the slightest degree of accuracy, I doubt you can predict anything accurately over a larger time period.

All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.

It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future.

There you go again with "accurate", after berating me for denying accuracy.

I am not berating you, I am simply stating that saying one can predict the future is not possible AFAIK. If you have evidence to the contrary, that shows you can in fact do this, please present it. Show me how you "know", not suspect or think, but "know" that humans won't outlive/outlast the solar system.

The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future.

Uh? Of course it's reasonable for me to say what I said. It may not be a certainty, but it is reasonable. You appear not to be arguing with it, in specific terms (i.e. you deliberately do not predict that our species will outlast the solar system), but get hot under the collar about a reasonable statement to the contrary.

It isn't reasonable unless you can predict the future. AFAIK, no one, including you and I, can. It doesn't have to be certain, simply reasonable. If you state you "know" the human species will not outlast/outlive the solar system, then I would like you see how you came to this conclusion. If it's true, you'll probably rock the scientific community to it's core.

Demise: a cessation of existence. Don't you have a dictionary or can you honestly not fit one of the meanings to the context of my post? Also, could you really not see that I was referring to the solar system in which you live? After all, the subject was the longevity of the human species.

There is no context, only what you state. How are you defining a cessation of existence? If the sun seeks to exist as we know it, is it the end of the the solar system? If we loose planets, is that the end of the solar system? What are your quantitative criteria?

That being said, if you wish to "fit" illogical "meanings" out of thin air that is fine by me... Perhaps you "know" this just like you "knew" what I was thinking or "implying" in the past.

we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Jeez, I don't know why I bother. Like I said before, you may not want to hear it from me, but I still think brushing up on some logic/math would be a good idea. You may come out with a better idea of what you "know" and what you "don't know".

[TonyPrep]

You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".

How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means

the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.

Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.

I'd already accepted that there is no 100% accuracy in stating that humans will not outlive the solar system, but it is a reasonable statement to make. Since you think reasonableness implies total accuracy then I don't think we're going to get anywhere. I might even say it's a good working assumption but you would probably say that we can't assume anything until it has happened.

Let me offer you a way out of this, yesplease. You are absolutely right that the word "know", in its strict meaning, implies 100% knowledge and so was the incorrect word for me to use. In my defence, let me say that I was using conversational English. In normal, everyday, English we often use the word "know" to mean having a high degree of confidence that something is true.

I'm sure you'll argue about that also, yesplease. If so, please argue with yourself. I'm done.

[yesplease]

You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".

How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means

the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.

Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.

Accuracy has different definitions. The one pertaining to logic/math is...

the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.

If you had simply asked what I had meant perhaps we wouldn't have gone on this long about this.

Since you think reasonableness implies total accuracy then I don't think we're going to get anywhere.

No I don't. I've already told you several times, including a quote of the definition I was using, what I meant. Words have different definitions, and if you were unsure about the definition I don't see why you wouldn't ask about it before flying into paragraph long statements about something I wasn't talking about in the first place.

You are absolutely right that the word "know", in its strict meaning, implies 100% knowledge and so was the incorrect word for me to use. In my defence, let me say that I was using conversational English. In normal, everyday, English we often use the word "know" to mean having a high degree of confidence that something is true.

Why wouldn't you just say that in the first place? And even then, while you and Miss Cleo may have a high degree of confidence about your abilities to predict the future, I don't. As rational and logical beings, the only thing we could say about the future, especially that far into it, discounting of course trivial examples (short time periods and stuff that has to happen by definition), is that we don't know what will happen. You can assume the human specieis won't outlive/etc the solar system, but that's a long way from "know" or even a high degree of confidence, unless of course you aren't guided by rationality/logic and your high degree of confidence in your predictive abilities comes from a source that doesn't depend on the accuracy of those predictions.

I'm sure you'll argue about that also, yesplease. If so, please argue with yourself. I'm done.

M'kay. Like I said before, I ain't arguing with you. I'm just typing/communicating and pointing out what I feel is an unreasonable statement for a logical/rational being to make. If you're arguing w/ me, that's fine I suppose, but all I'm doing is typing along *clickity clackity noises* expressing my views. If you dislike them to the point where you feel I am arguing with you, that's fine too.

[TonyPrep]

You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".

How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means

the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.

Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.

Accuracy has different definitions.

To help you research your error, yesplease, this is where you used the word "accurately", not "accuracy". It is the former word that you need to look up the meaning of. Have fun. (BTW, to ease the pain, I admit that, with the word "accuracy", "100%" was not redundant, though it was used in relation to your use of "accurately").

[yesplease]

Oh! Ya got me. Coulda sworn it was accuracy, but hey, certainly isn't the first time I've been wrong. So, for the record, I meant the definition I posted and wrote something that I didn't mean.

That being said, I'm still waiting for your explanation Miss Cleo, on how you have a high degree of confidence in predicting what will happen to the human race billions of years from now.

Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

[TonyPrep]

That being said, I'm still waiting for your explanation Miss Cleo, on how you have a high degree of confidence in predicting what will happen to the human race billions of years from now.

Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

In case Miss Cleo doesn't answer, let me try my take.

Not many species have lasted billions of years. Chances are, the human species won't either. If is does, then it would have to have moved to the outer planets by the time the sun expands to consume the earth. As there are currently no other habitable planets in the solar system, humans would have to terraform some outer planet or build artificial habitats that can maintain a viable human population. Humans would also have to figure out how to survive a surfeit of solar energy as it expands to a red giant. Then they would have to manage on a lot less as it collapsed to a white dwarf. In the meantime, all sorts of solar related catastrophes have to be overcome, as well as keeping their fingers crossed that they manage to stay in orbit. Eventually the sun will become a stellar corpse so any humans left will have had to find other means of sustenance well before then. This involves travelling many light years to the closest star systems and hoping that at least one planet is habitable, that there are enough humans left (after generations of travel without any significant input of energy) to be able to build a new habitat and procreate.

Of course, there is a chance that these things could happen, but when you start to multiply the probabilities (we haven't shown any ability to do any of this beyond a nearby small capsule with supplies shipped from earth, so, at this point, the probability of any one event is small) you end up with a very small probability indeed.

Now, remember, yesplease, this is not a scientific paper. This is conversational English. Of course we don't know the probabilities' exact magnitude, except that they are less than 1. It won't take many required successes to get the total probability trending to zero.

So I have a high degree of confidence that the human species won't survive the demise of the solar system.

If you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information to accurately predict that", what would you say?

[yesplease]

Of course, there is a chance that these things could happen, but when you start to multiply the probabilities (we haven't shown any ability to do any of this beyond a nearby small capsule with supplies shipped from earth, so, at this point, the probability of any one event is small) you end up with a very small probability indeed.

So what (roughly) are those probabilities over the next ~billion years?

Now, remember, yesplease, this is not a scientific paper. This is conversational English.

How horrible it would be for you to use science, logic, or math instead of conversational English, which you are clearly quite good at as we can see from these statements in the same post, ironically enough.

I am also perfectly able to use the English language properly

yesplease, you're post count is over a thousand.

Of course we don't know the probabilities' exact magnitude, except that they are less than 1. It won't take many required successes to get the total probability trending to zero.

Roughly speaking, not exactly, since you don't seem to like such things, what are those probabilities?

If you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information to accurately predict that", what would you say?

"No se" pendejito! TonyPrep, if you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say anything except for "purple", what would you say? C'mon d00d, no one put a gun to your head and forced you to say this batshitcrazy stuff, and constructing scenarios where others can't say they "don't know" to validate your PO psychic hotline only makes you seem nuttier.

[TonyPrep]

yesplease, dragging up one typo from all the posts we've shared is pathetic. However, I should be honoured that you kept that little gem from me. They are rare, after all, and should be worth a lot, some day.

However, it shows that you aren't serious about discussions here, so I will decline to answer your question; not that it was seriously asked, anyway.

[yesplease]

yesplease, dragging up one typo from all the posts we've shared is pathetic. However, I should be honoured that you kept that little gem from me. They are rare, after all, and should be worth a lot, some day.

Hey meng, I'm just bringing up an instance of your conversational English, which you were talking about. I don't see how it's off topic. Remember, don't shoot the messenger! In any event, I don't think those little gems will be worth the electrons they're sent on given how many other gaffs I've seen on your end, the latest example being how you "know" the future of the human species.

However, it shows that you aren't serious about discussions here, so I will decline to answer your question; not that it was seriously asked, anyway.

Unlike you, who are serious about your claim to "know" what will happen to the human species in the future? C'mon... If I thought for a second you were interested in any serious discussion of anything I'd be up for it, but all you seem to do is "know" that others "imply" stuff they don't literally write, while "interpreting" the writings of those you seem fond of in a favorable way, regardless of what they literally wrote.

[M_B_S]

Hi guys here I am again!

Atomic lights in India went off:

Reason: acute uranium shortage on the sub-continent

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Fu ... ts/318353/

The uranium shortage has affected existing atomic power plants, which are running below capacity. Due to insufficient uranium supply, power production at NPC’s plants fell to about 16,960 million units in 2007-08 from 18,000 MU a year earlier. Nuclear Power Corporation has highlighted this problem at various forums.....
**********************************************

There is plentiful uranium on earth: in seewater, granite, sandstone ....

but not in India.....

[MCrab]

Tsk, tsk, M_B_S, as the article you cite makes clear, the lack of fuel is temporary while India seeks to ratify an agreement that will allow it to import nuclear fuel. This is something it has been unable to do since it tested a nuclear device in 1974, four years after the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect. From an economic point of view it thus makes sense for them to wait while import restrictions are relaxed rather than spend money developing indigenous expensive low grade uranium resources.


Now....

***M_B_S Warning*** DO NOT READ BELOW THIS POINT. IT IS LIABLE TO MAKE YOU CRY.:twisted:

Rejoice! Rejoice! It's that special time all right-thinking nuclear supporters wait for with baited breath......yes, the publication of the Red Book. For those not in the know, this is published biennially by the NEA and IAEA and compiles uranium statistics from over 40 countries. It is particularly beloved by those of us who like to fondle our fuel rods because it invariably shows increases in all categories of uranium reserves, despite production. So what does the Red Book 2007 say? Let's see:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_E ... 06082.html

Worldwide around 5.5 million tonnes of uranium that could be economically mined has been identified. The figure is up 17% compared to that from the last edition of the Red Book because of a surge in exploration for uranium prompted by a dramatic price increase.

and

In addition to these identified resources, the category of uranium that could be expected to be found based on the geologic characteristics of known resources has grown by 500,000 tonnes to 10.5 million tonnes.

To those who have followed the long, tortuous but frequently rewarding path of this thread, none of this should come as much of a surprise. And, of course, the fact that the Red Book figures refer only to conventional resources (i.e. excluding phosphates, coal ash, etc) mineable for less that $130/kg and that the speculative resource estimates currently exclude some countries such as Australia, should almost need to go unsaid.

So, it would seem the foundations of the nuclear renaissance continue to get stronger.


If, M_B_S, you ignored my warning, please consider that the emotional distress you now incur may prove a useful experience in overcoming a far greater trauma when Germany abolishes its nuclear phase-out.

[Mark_i]

thankx mr. crab for this information

[M_B_S]

World uranium production up in 2007 : 43300 t ?! +10%

But verify the numbers carefully


http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html


There are some differences in the numbers from Kasakhstan

Look here the official number is smaller ~10%

http://www.kazatomprom.kz/15000/?nc7&version=
According to the results of year 2007 the volume of uranium production in Kazakhstan was 6637 tons of uranium compared with 5281 tons of uranium in 2006; the growth in comparison with the previous year was 25.7%.



So it seems the wise numbers are 10% to optimistical = stagnation!