[ejacob3]

http://theanchorhouse.com/2006/10/10/ra ... checkmate/


Peak oil is just the beginning, the world is running out of everything.

[emailking]

Holy Crap!!

[FoxV]

well I wouldn't worry about Rare earth shortages just yet (link)

at current production levels the rest of the world has close to a 400 year supply (extraction issues aside).

however this does raise the issue of population overshoot as we are rapidly approaching the depletion of many resources (drinking water being at the top of the list).

btw, Gold and Silver are also getting close to their depletions as well (within 15 years from some sources).

[MrMambo]

FoxV:

Can you put some detail in your claim that the "rest of the world" has 400 years of supply at current production levels.

Does that account for all of the "rare earth element's"?
What about increases in consumption? Are some of the elements destined to be depleted a lot earlier than others?

And if China is currently producing 97% of the REE's is that related to the size of their deposits? With other words: Are there deposits elsewhere that can match the chineese deposits?

I would basically like to know if it is just economic pragmatism of lowest price production that has led to china having 97% of production or if comes directly from differences in the size of the mineral deposits.

[FoxV]

The 400 years is just a simple math calculation using the data from the link I provided.

basically:
World reserves = 150 000 000 tonnes
China reserves = 89 000 000 tonnes
World without China = 61 000 000 tonnes

World production = 136 195 tonnes
years left without China = 61 000 000 / 136 195 = 447.89years

so no considerations for future demand or extraction issues when digging up the marginal portions. Which means my numbers are totally off, but the time line is far enough into the future that it becomes a moot point. There are far more pressing issues that will come up before then (although not having neodymium magnets to play with would be a shame, watch your fingers )

I would basically like to know if it is just economic pragmatism of lowest price production that has led to china having 97% of production or if comes directly from differences in the size of the mineral deposits.

So I would say its just the economics of it all that give China a 97% share of production, after all they have 60% of the total world reserves with 40% coming from a single mine.

The next largest player, the USA, has less than 1/6th of what China has

[Lighthouse]

And don't forget all of the 16 REE's are there in abundance in the Earth's crust. And please consider, that without a reliable energy supply all of them are useless anyway.

[Dezakin]

This is kind of silly. The depletion curve for minerals doesn't match the depeltion curve for fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are leftover bio-waste from the very thin film of life spending all of its time crapping on the planet, where mineral resources go all the way down the mantle.

Which is sort of why we wont run out of uranium in any meaningful time frame either.

[emailking]

This is kind of silly. The depletion curve for minerals doesn't match the depeltion curve for fossil fuels.

It does if you have to use the depleting fossil fuels to extract the depleting minerals.

[Dezakin]

This is kind of silly. The depletion curve for minerals doesn't match the depeltion curve for fossil fuels.

It does if you have to use the depleting fossil fuels to extract the depleting minerals.

But you dont. See uranium.

[emailking]

This is kind of silly. The depletion curve for minerals doesn't match the depeltion curve for fossil fuels.

It does if you have to use the depleting fossil fuels to extract the depleting minerals.

But you dont. See uranium.

Uranium isn't really in the scope of that article. It's main application is releasing energy. Extracting minerals "all the way down to the mantle" requires fossil fuels.

[Dezakin]

This is kind of silly. The depletion curve for minerals doesn't match the depeltion curve for fossil fuels.

It does if you have to use the depleting fossil fuels to extract the depleting minerals.

But you dont. See uranium.

Uranium isn't really in the scope of that article. It's main application is releasing energy. Extracting minerals "all the way down to the mantle" requires fossil fuels.

No it doesnt. Mining equipment can run on electricity, or diesel fuel manufactured from limestone, water, and nuclear process heat.

[emailking]

I will rephrase. Extracting minerals all the way down to the mantle in quantities anywhere close to what we're used to for a decade or so will require fossil fuels.

Of course, those other sources of energy might be spent elsewhere...such as heating your house or turning on lights.

[joewp]

No it doesnt. Mining equipment can run on electricity, or diesel fuel manufactured from limestone, water, and nuclear process heat.

Do you have a link for these claims? I'm skeptical about both, in the electricity case, how does electricity run one of these:


and what's the EROEI for turning limestone, water and np heat into diesel? Keep in mind you're going to have to use some of that diesel to bring the limestone, water and nukes together. Will you have enough usable energy to make it worthwhile?

By the way, did you know that water is a fairly restricted resource too.

Oh yeah, you think water is just a derivative of energy. So how much energy goes into creating this water for making this diesel? subtract that from your production too. Don't forget the energy required to mine the uranium and to transport it to where all these miracles are taking place.

Guys like you are always looking for a free lunch. The laws of thermodynamics basically say there's no such thing as a free luch. I even think fusion will never work, because you will probably have to put more energy into it than you get back.

I know, way off topic, but I'd like you, Dez to show some evidence for your cornucopian dreams other than "No it doesn't".

If you have any...

[Doly]

how does electricity run one of these

That isn't really a problem. Electric motors can be quite strong.

and what's the EROEI for turning limestone, water and np heat into diesel?

Negative (less than one, for the purists), but Dezakin claims it doesn't matter because there's plenty of nuclear energy. I disagree with that, mostly because bringing online the amount of nuclear plants needed for that is pretty much impossible.

[Dezakin]

No it doesnt. Mining equipment can run on electricity, or diesel fuel manufactured from limestone, water, and nuclear process heat.

Do you have a link for these claims? I'm skeptical about both, in the electricity case, how does electricity run one of these:

A power cord? I'm sure we could engineer a solution if we had to.

and what's the EROEI for turning limestone, water and np heat into diesel? Keep in mind you're going to have to use some of that diesel to bring the limestone, water and nukes together.

Sure. Energy return on LWRs with centrifuge enrichment is about 50. Then you just do the process losses, which is maybe 50% if you're real sloppy with everything... then its 25. I dont know what the actual process losses of heating up limestone to turn it into quicklime and then mixing it with steam in high temperature electrolysis are, but its all energy positive if the NPP is. EROEI is a fairly useless concept except for determining actual physical limits. The modern world is more concerned with money returned on money invested.

Will you have enough usable energy to make it worthwhile?

Oh certainly. You get quicklime out of it also. Yay, cement.

By the way, did you know that water is a fairly restricted resource too.

Oh yah, I forgot it only covers 2/3rds of the planet miles deep in some places. Its not like you need freshwater for this, given you have to turn it into steam anyways.

Oh yeah, you think water is just a derivative of energy. So how much energy goes into creating this water for making this diesel? subtract that from your production too. Don't forget the energy required to mine the uranium and to transport it to where all these miracles are taking place.

Never did. The energy content of uranium is so staggeringly large, that you can mill it from granite at 10ppm for light water reactors if you have to for postive energy return. Transport costs of the finished fuel is insignificant, given 1 ton will give you 10MW for a year. This is before we enter breeder reactor territory.

Guys like you are always looking for a free lunch. The laws of thermodynamics basically say there's no such thing as a free luch.

Where am I suggesting anything that violates any of the laws. I strongly suspect I understand thermodynamics better than you are implying I do.

I even think fusion will never work, because you will probably have to put more energy into it than you get back.

Theres this giant ball that comes up once a day that just sort of hangs in the sky that says you're wrong. Then theres some folks that received severe sunburn at bikini atoll that would also disagree with you. The only question is how small you can scale it, and how cost competitive it is. 100 megaton pulsed inertial confinement might be great if our reactor core is several miles across.

I know, way off topic, but I'd like you, Dez to show some evidence for your cornucopian dreams other than "No it doesn't".

If you have any...

What do you want? Links on energy payback of uranium in LWR? In breeder reactors? Thorium? Cost breakdown of a possible limestone synthetic fuel/cement plant?

[joewp]

A power cord? I'm sure we could engineer a solution if we had to.

I'm sure you're sure. With respect to Doly's remark that electric motors can be very powerful, it's the power source I'm concerned about. How big would the batteries to run that thing be? Notice that even with diesel fuel, the payload portion of that behemoth is smaller than a normal dumptruck, as a percentage of total volume. Batteries are less energy dense than diesel, if I'm not mistaken.

EROEI is a fairly useless concept except for determining actual physical limits. The modern world is more concerned with money returned on money invested.

That's correct. That's why the Alberta tar sands are running into major cost overruns, even though they're still EROEI > 1. I suspect much of the tar sands and other marginal oil sources will remain untapped because energy and other costs (such as labor and other raw materials) will make them unprofitable at any price of oil.

Never did. The energy content of uranium is so staggeringly large, that you can mill it from granite at 10ppm for light water reactors if you have to for postive energy return. Transport costs of the finished fuel is insignificant, given 1 ton will give you 10MW for a year. This is before we enter breeder reactor territory.

You see? You're only considering the transport cost for the fuel. What about transporting all the raw materials to build the reactor in the first place, Like many optimists, you're assuming the fossil fuel infrastructure for your "alternative" energy scheme.

Where am I suggesting anything that violates any of the laws. I strongly suspect I understand thermodynamics better than you are implying I do.

I think you're assuming current fossil fuel infrastructure to make your scheme work. Like your 10 ppm mining example, you still have to pump it out of the ground and transport it. Where does the energy going to come from for that, a nuke plant at every uranium mine?

I
Theres this giant ball that comes up once a day that just sort of hangs in the sky that says you're wrong. Then theres some folks that received severe sunburn at bikini atoll that would also disagree with you. The only question is how small you can scale it, and how cost competitive it is. 100 megaton pulsed inertial confinement might be great if our reactor core is several miles across.

Ah yes, good ol' Mr. Sun. I'm not sure, but I suspect that the gravitational energy that shoves those nuclei together might be quite close to the fusion energy he puts out. I've googled many ways but haven't found any studies to confirm or refute my suspicions.

By the way, what do you plan to do with all the pretty glowing waste products?

What do you want? Links on energy payback of uranium in LWR? In breeder reactors? Thorium? Cost breakdown of a possible limestone synthetic fuel/cement plant?

That would be good for a start. Next tackle the problems of siting all these monsters, dealing with the waste, and dealing with all the lawsuits parents of greenish, three-toed babies will file.

I know, I know, you're sure we'll think of something...

[EnergyUnlimited]

A power cord? I'm sure we could engineer a solution if we had to.

I'm sure you're sure. With respect to Doly's remark that electric motors can be very powerful, it's the power source I'm concerned about. How big would the batteries to run that thing be? Notice that even with diesel fuel, the payload portion of that behemoth is smaller than a normal dumptruck, as a percentage of total volume. Batteries are less energy dense than diesel, if I'm not mistaken.

All, I may say is that in European coal mines diesel is not essential source of energy to carry on production.
I do not see much problems with transition to electricity in mining.

You see? You're only considering the transport cost for the fuel. What about transporting all the raw materials to build the reactor in the first place, Like many optimists, you're assuming the fossil fuel infrastructure for your "alternative" energy scheme.

Did you ever see electric train?

I think you're assuming current fossil fuel infrastructure to make your scheme work. Like your 10 ppm mining example, you still have to pump it out of the ground and transport it. Where does the energy going to come from for that, a nuke plant at every uranium mine?

200 of miles from mine would easily do with cheap AC electricity transmission technology.
It can be much more with DC transmission lines. And this nuke plant would also serve few cities, rail electricity etc.

Ah yes, good ol' Mr. Sun. I'm not sure, but I suspect that the gravitational energy that shoves those nuclei together might be quite close to the fusion energy he puts out. I've googled many ways but haven't found any studies to confirm or refute my suspicions.

That concept (hardly any energy from fusion due to gravitational concerns of average Sun like star) is a plain nonsense.
May be around event horizon of black hole you would begin to observe this diminishing energy problem.

By the way, what do you plan to do with all the pretty glowing waste products?

Thats easy. Reprocess most of it into MOX fuel, and store remaining small amounts in underground depository. Few centuries of waiting (not few millions as some people claim) and it is all gone. If you do not do reprocessing, than you are in bigger trouble.
Waste issues are rather of PR and polytical than of engineering nature.

That would be good for a start. Next tackle the problems of siting all these monsters, dealing with the waste, and dealing with all the lawsuits parents of greenish, three-toed babies will file.

I know, I know, you're sure we'll think of something...

1. I really cannot see any monsters sitting in nuclear power plants.
2. Dealing with waste is described in previous paragraph.
3. Peoples will stop suing, if alternative is to sit in dark & cold room. If too many of them will carry on regardless, then authorities will legislate in immunity to nuclear sector. NPP under normal working conditions release much less of radioactivity, than FF plant.
4. Current reactor desins are sufficiently advanced not to allow Chernobyl scenario again. OK, may be once per thousand years with thousand of modern NPP operating. That is a risk, you must live with.

[Doly]

With respect to Doly's remark that electric motors can be very powerful, it's the power source I'm concerned about. How big would the batteries to run that thing be?

Doesn't have to be batteries. There are several options of chemical reactions that can be used: metals and boron, for example, can be oxidised and generate energy. This is, of course, assuming that you use energy beforehand to obtain the pure metal or boron. But we are talking about a solution to transport here, not about sources of energy.

You see? You're only considering the transport cost for the fuel. What about transporting all the raw materials to build the reactor in the first place

Transport of materials to build the reactor is negligible in comparison with transport for the fuel. And in any case, can be done in similar ways.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that the gravitational energy that shoves those nuclei together might be quite close to the fusion energy he puts out.

You have an initial grasp of thermodynamics. You are thinking in terms that energy isn't created or destroyed, only transformed. So if gravity is what causes nuclear fusion, it looks like the gravity you put in should be equal to the radiation you get out of nuclear fusion.

But this is incorrect, because you aren't taking into account that hydrogen atoms have a higher energy level than helium atoms. Lighter elements have a higher energy level than heavier elements, up until iron. Elements heavier than iron have a higher energy level the heavier they are.

Nuclear reactions are in many ways similar to chemical reactions, only that the energy levels you are talking about are much higher. So thinking that the energy you put in must be about the same you take out, is a bit like thinking that the energy you put in a bonfire with a match is about the same as you get out with the fire. What's happening is that wood has a higher energy level than smoke and ashes, so you get energy out of the proccess.

[emailking]

So if gravity is what causes nuclear fusion

This is a minor point in the context of this thread, but it is the internal temperature of the sun that causes nuclear fusion. Not gravity.

[joewp]

So if gravity is what causes nuclear fusion

This is a minor point in the context of this thread, but it is the internal temperature of the sun that causes nuclear fusion. Not gravity.

What causes the internal temperature of the Sun if not gravity?

I still need some more convincing on this subject. The Sun's mass is always pushing the H atoms together, sustaining the reaction. I don't know if that's possible to do here on Earth. Granted there's energy in matter, that's e=mc[sup]2[/sup], but how do you continually feed matter into the reaction at the temperature and pressure needed to keep the fusion reaction going?

Hmm... maybe that's what ITER is going to find out?