Increasing Global Nonrenewable Natural Resource Scarcity—An Analysis
Posted by Gail the Actuary on April 6, 2010 - 10:49am
This is a guest post by Chris Clugston. It is a somewhat abbreviated version of a longer analysis he did, which can be downloaded here. For the past four years, he has been researching aspects of sustainability. Prior to that time, he worked for 30 years as an executive and consultant in Information Technology.
Abstract
During the pre-recession years of the 21st century, we experienced wide-ranging nonrenewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity on a global scale for the first time. Supplies associated with an overwhelming majority of the global energy resources, metals, and minerals that enable our industrialized way of life failed to keep pace with increasing global demand during the 2000-2008 period, resulting in global NNR supply shortfalls.
Global NNR scarcity will intensify going forward, as global economic activity levels, economic growth rates, and corresponding NNR demand return to their pre-recession levels; and global NNR supply levels continue to approach and reach their geological limits. The debilitating societal effects associated with global NNR scarcity, which we experienced to a limited degree during the Great Recession, will also intensify going forward, as temporary global NNR supply shortfalls become permanent.
The Global Nonrenewable Natural Resource Scarcity Assessment quantifies the scope associated with global NNR scarcity, both prior to the Great Recession and going forward, by analyzing global production (extraction) data, price data, and reserve base estimates associated with a broad array of energy resources, metals, and minerals.
The salient findings associated with the assessment: 50 of the 57 analyzed NNRs (88%) experienced global scarcity during the 2000-2008 period; 23 of the 26 analyzed NNRs (88%) will likely experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030.
At the end of the day, we are not about to “run out” of any NNR; we are about to run “critically short” of many. This reality will have a devastating impact on our industrial lifestyle paradigm.
Introduction
Nonrenewable Natural Resources—the Enablers of Industrialization
Our industrial1 lifestyle paradigm is enabled by nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)—energy resources, metals, and minerals. Both the support infrastructure within industrialized nations and the raw material inputs into industrialized economies consist almost entirely of NNRs; NNRs are the primary sources of the tremendous wealth surpluses required to perpetuate industrialized societies.
As a case in point, the percentage of NNR inputs into the US economy increased from less than 10% in the year 1800, which corresponds roughly with the inception of the American industrial revolution, to approximately 95% today.2,3 Between 1800 and today, America’s total annual NNR utilization level increased from approximately 4 million tons to nearly 7 billion tons—an increase of over 1700 times!4
In the absence of enormous and ever-increasing NNR supplies, the 1.2 billion people5 who currently enjoy an industrialized way of life will cease to do so; and the billions of people aspiring to an industrialized way of life will fail to realize their goal.
NNR Scarcity
As their name implies, NNRs are finite—they are not replenished by Nature;6 and they are scarce—economically viable NNR deposits are rare. Persistent extraction (production) will therefore deplete recoverable NNR reserves to exhaustion. [Note: the terms NNR “production” and NNR “extraction” are used interchangeably throughout the paper. Although “extraction” is the proper term—humans do not produce NNRs—the term “production” has gained wide acceptance within the NNR extraction industries.]
The typical NNR depletion cycle7 is characterized by:
a period of “continuously more and more”, as the easily accessible, high quality, low cost resources are extracted; followed by a “supply peak”,8 or maximum attainable extraction level; followed by a period of “continuously less and less”, as the less accessible, lower quality, higher cost resources are extracted.
Since the inception of our industrial revolution, humanity has been the beneficiary of “continuously more and more” with respect to available NNR supplies. Unfortunately, in the process of reaping the benefits associated with “continuously more and more”, we have been eliminating—persistently and systematically—the very natural resources upon which our industrialized way of life depends.
Increasingly, global NNR supplies are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less”, as they peak and go into terminal decline. As a result, NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce—ever-tightening global NNR supplies are struggling to keep pace with ever-increasing global demand.
The Analyses
The following Global Nonrenewable Natural Resource Scarcity Assessment quantifies the magnitude associated with increasing global NNR scarcity and the probabilities associated with imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls. The assessment consists of two analyses, both of which are based on US Geological Survey (USGS) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.9
- The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis assesses the incidence of global scarcity associated with each of 57 NNRs during the period of global economic growth (2000-2008) prior to the Great Recession.
- The Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis assesses the probability of a permanent global supply shortfall associated with each of 26 NNRs between now and the year 2030.
Summary Findings
Global NNR Scarcity Analysis Summary Findings
Fifty (50) of the 57 analyzed NNRs (88%) experienced some level of global scarcity during the period of global economic growth (2000-2008) that preceded the Great Recession.
Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis Summary Findings
Twenty three (23) of the 26 analyzed NNRs (88%) will likely experience a permanent global NNR supply shortfall by the year 2030.
Global NNR Scarcity Analysis
The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based on US Geological Survey (USGS) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data related to global production and pricing associated with fifty seven (57) NNRs—energy resources, metals, and minerals.
Global NNR Scarcity
In a general sense, NNR scarcity exists when aggregate NNR supply is insufficient to meet aggregate NNR demand; the result is unfulfilled NNR demand. Ongoing NNR scarcity is characterized by an increasing NNR price level, which fails to induce sufficient incremental NNR supply to suppress the price level.
Global NNR Scarcity Analysis Overview
The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis assesses the incidence of global scarcity associated with 57 NNRs during the period of global economic growth (2000-2008) prior to the Great Recession.
Specifically, the analysis compares annual global NNR production data and NNR pricing data10 from the 20th century with that of the pre-recession 21st century (2000-2008). NNRs considered “scarce” during the 2000-2008 period are those for which 21st century global NNR production levels were insufficient to suppress rising 21st century price levels.
NNR scarcity levels are defined by the following NNR production level and price level combinations:
Global NNR Scarcity Assessment
The following table contains 20th century and 21st century global production trend data and price trend data for each of the 57 analyzed NNRs. Specifically, it contains the compound annual growth (decline) rates associated with global NNR production levels and NNR price levels during the 20th century and 21st century (2000-2008). The table also notes the level of scarcity experienced by each NNR during the 2000 to 2008 time period. (See Appendix A: Global NNR Scarcity Probability Detail.)
Macro Level Global NNR Scarcity Assessment
During the 20th century, global production levels associated with 56 of the 57 analyzed NNRs (98%) increased annually, while global price levels associated with 45 of the 57 analyzed NNRs (79%) decreased annually.
Generally increasing global NNR production levels in conjunction with generally decreasing global NNR price levels indicate relative global NNR abundance during the 20th century. On the whole, global NNR supplies kept pace with ever-increasing global demand during the 20th century.
During the pre-recession years of the 21st century (2000-2008), annual global production level growth rates associated with 34 of the 57 analyzed NNRs (59%) decreased in comparison to 20th century growth rates, or actually went negative; while annual global price level growth rates associated with 51 of the 57 analyzed NNRs (89%) increased in comparison to 20th century growth rates.
Generally slowing or declining global NNR production growth in conjunction with generally increasing global NNR prices indicate increasing NNR scarcity during the early years of the 21st century—annual global NNR supplies were increasingly unable to keep pace with ever-increasing global demand.
Global NNR Scarcity Analysis Findings
An overwhelming majority (88%) of the analyzed NNRs—50 out of 57—experienced some level of global scarcity during the pre-recession years of the 21st century; available global supplies associated with these NNRs could not keep pace with demand during the 2000-2008 period. At issue is whether this phenomenon is temporary or permanent.
In some cases, global NNR scarcity during the early 21st century was undoubtedly a temporary phenomenon. Sufficient additional NNR reserves existed to fulfill global requirements; but they could not be produced quickly enough to keep pace with ever-increasing demand—possibly due to geopolitical constraints or to the lack of sufficient capital investment. Remaining supplies associated with these NNRs will be sufficient to contribute toward the complete restoration of pre-recession global economic activity levels and growth rates (this time).
In other cases, global NNR scarcity is a permanent condition; available NNR supplies were physically (geologically) unable to keep pace with ever-increasing demand during the 2000-2008 period. Remaining supplies associated with these NNRs are no longer sufficient to contribute fully toward pre-recession global economic activity levels and growth rates.
Given that industrialized and industrializing nations will attempt to recover from the Great Recession as quickly as possible—thereby restoring or exceeding pre-recession economic activity levels and growth rates—it will soon become evident which NNRs experienced temporary global scarcity during the early 21st century and which experienced permanent global scarcity.
It will certainly become evident that an increasing number of NNRs are becoming increasingly scarcity globally, as ever-tightening global NNR supplies fail increasingly to keep pace with relentlessly increasing global NNR demand. And while we may recover fully from the Great Recession, permanent global NNR supply shortfalls will preclude our full recovery from a subsequent global economic contraction at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Global NNR Shortfall Analysis
The Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis is based on US Geological Survey (USGS) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) global NNR extraction data and (Verhulst) logistics curve fitting analyses11 associated with 26 NNRs.
Global NNR Supply Shortfalls
An NNR supply shortfall occurs when the available NNR supply level is less than the supply level required to enable a society’s prevailing economic activity level and growth rate. An NNR supply shortfall can be temporary, permanent, or fatal.
A temporary NNR supply shortfall occurs when the available NNR supply level falls below the “required” supply level for a finite period of time. Since the available NNR supply level ultimately recovers to the required level, the society’s pre-shortfall economic activity level and growth rate are restored.
A permanent NNR supply shortfall occurs when the available NNR supply level falls below the “required” supply level forever. Since the available NNR supply level never recovers to the required level, the society’s pre-shortfall economic activity level and growth rate are not restored.
A fatal NNR supply shortfall occurs when the available NNR supply level falls below the “critical” supply level forever. At this point, available NNR supply can no longer enable the production and provisioning of one or more societal essentials—clean water, food, energy, shelter, clothing, and infrastructure—at levels sufficient to support the society’s existing population.
Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis Overview
The Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis assesses the probability of permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 26 NNRs between now and the year 2030.
Specifically, the analysis compares historic and projected annual global NNR extraction levels associated with each NNR through the year 2030, with the actual or projected peak extraction level associated with the NNR. An imminent and permanent global NNR shortfall is considered probable if the annual global NNR extraction level has already reached its global peak extraction level, or if the projected annual global NNR extraction level is expected to reach its projected global peak extraction level by the year 2030.
The probabilities that an NNR will experience a permanent global supply shortfall by the year 2030 are defined as follows:
Nearly Certain Probability: it is very likely that the actual annual global NNR extraction level reached its geological global peak extraction level prior to the year 2010.
Very High Probability: the actual annual global NNR extraction level exceeded its projected (Verhulst) global peak extraction level prior to the year 2010.
High Probability: it is very likely that the projected annual global NNR extraction level will exceed its projected (Verhulst) global peak extraction level between the years 2010 and 2030.
Low Probability: it is very unlikely that the projected annual global NNR extraction level will exceed its projected (Verhulst) global peak extraction level prior to the year 2030.
Global NNR Supply Shortfall Assessment
The following table contains current (2007/2008) annual global NNR extraction level data, year 2030 global NNR extraction level estimates, and global peak NNR extraction level estimates for each of the 26 analyzed NNRs.12 The table also notes the probability that each of the 26 NNRs will experience a permanent global supply shortfall by the year 2030.
Twenty three (23) of the 26 analyzed NNRs (88%) will likely experience permanent global NNR supply shortfalls by the year 2030—available global supplies associated with these NNRs will fail permanently to meet global NNR demand by that time. Specifically:
Actual annual global extraction levels associated with cadmium, gold, mercury, tellurium, and tungsten have likely reached their geological global peak extraction levels, and are in terminal decline worldwide.
The probability that these NNRs will experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030 is nearly certain, assuming near term recoveries to pre-recession NNR extraction levels and growth rates, and the continued inability of recycled NNRs to more than offset ever-tightening newly extracted supplies.13
Actual annual global extraction levels associated with cobalt, lead, molybdenum, PGM, phosphate rock, silver, titanium, and zinc exceeded their projected Verhulst global peak extraction levels prior to the year 2010. Current annual global extraction levels associated with these NNRs are likely near or at their geological global peak extraction levels.
The probability that these NNRs will experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030 is very high, assuming near term recoveries to pre-recession NNR extraction levels and growth rates, and the continued inability of recycled NNRs to more than offset ever-tightening newly extracted supplies.13
Actual annual global extraction levels associated with chromium, coal, copper, indium, iron ore, lithium, magnesium compounds, natural gas, nickel, oil, and phosphate rock are expected to exceed their projected Verhulst global peak extraction levels between the years 2010 and 2030.
The probability that these NNRs will experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030 is high, assuming near term recoveries to pre-recession NNR extraction levels and growth rates, and the continued inability of recycled NNRs to more than offset ever-tightening newly extracted supplies.13
Actual annual global extraction levels associated with bauxite, rare earth minerals, and tin are not expected to exceed their projected Verhulst global peak extraction levels prior to the year 2030.
The probability that these NNRs will experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030 is low, unless future NNR extraction levels and growth rates far exceed pre-recession extraction levels and growth rates, due to unforeseen increases in global demand.
Note that national and/or regional NNR supply shortfalls should be expected to occur, primarily for geopolitical reasons,14 even though global NNR supplies remain at sufficient levels to fully address global demand.
Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis Findings
Fifty (50) of the 57 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Scarcity Analysis experienced global scarcity—and therefore experienced temporary (at least) global supply shortfalls—during the 2000-2008 period. Twenty three (23) of the 26 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis are likely to experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030.
Each permanent NNR supply shortfall represents another crack in the foundation of our globalizing industrial lifestyle paradigm; at issue is which crack or combination of cracks will cause the structure to collapse?
Permanent global supply shortfalls associated with a single critical NNR or with a very few secondary NNRs can be sufficient to cause significant lifestyle disruptions—population level reductions and/or material living standard degradation.
A permanent shortfall in the global supply of oil, for example, would be sufficient to cause significant local, national, and/or global lifestyle disruptions, or outright global societal collapse; as would permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 2-3 critical NNRs such as potassium, phosphate rock, and (fixed) nitrogen; as would concurrent permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 4-5 secondary NNRs such as the alloys, catalysts, and reagents that enable the effective use of critical NNRs.15
Given our vulnerability to an ever-increasing number of imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls, the likelihood that the mix and volume of shortfalls will reach their “critical mass” is a question of “when”, not “if”.
Implications of Increasing Global NNR Scarcity
Increasing NNR Scarcity
Available supplies associated with an overwhelming majority of NNRs—including bauxite, copper, iron ore, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphate rock, potash, rare earth metals, tin, and zinc—have reached their domestic US peak extraction levels, and are in terminal decline.16 Based on the evidence presented above, available supplies associated with a vast majority of NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce globally as well.
Because global NNR supplies are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less”, our global societal wellbeing levels— our economic activity levels, population levels, and material living standards—are transitioning from “continuously more and more” to “continuously less and less” as well.
America—an Example of “Advanced” NNR Scarcity
A US NNR Scarcity Analysis was conducted to assess the incidence of NNR scarcity associated with fifty eight (58) NNRs in the United States.17 The salient findings:
- Annual US production levels associated with 50 of the 58 analyzed NNRs have reached their geological US peak production levels;
- Twenty five (25) of the 58 analyzed NNRs are no longer being produced in the US at all;
- The US currently imports some quantity of 46 of the 58 analyzed NNRs; and
- For 18 of the 58 analyzed NNRs, the US imports 100% of its current annual utilization level.
America has been able to supplement its continuously decreasing domestic NNR production levels—thereby forestalling fatal NNR supply shortfalls—by:
- Importing ever-increasing quantities of NNRs from foreign nations;
- Outsourcing US manufacturing operations to foreign offshore locations, thereby utilizing foreign NNRs; and
- Becoming a net importer of foreign goods and services, thereby utilizing foreign NNRs throughout the product/service production and provisioning processes.
Increasing Global NNR Scarcity
So long as 1.2 billion people seek to perpetuate their industrialized lifestyles and billions more actively aspire to an industrialized way of life, global NNR requirements and demand levels will increase unabated—while ever-tightening NNR supplies will continue to approach and reach their global peak levels.
The result of this demand/supply imbalance is a fundamental shift in the relationship among global NNR demand levels, supply levels, and utilization levels.
We are evolving from a “demand driven” NNR utilization paradigm in which our NNR utilization levels are determined by ever-increasing NNR demand, which is always met with ever-increasing supplies; to a “supply constrained” NNR utilization paradigm in which our NNR utilization levels will be determined by continuously decreasing NNR supplies, which will fail increasingly to keep pace with demand.
While the US has been able to rely on foreign NNR sources to offset its continuously decreasing domestic NNR production levels, the world has no such “safety net”—there is only one earth.
Footnotes
(1) The term “industrial” as used here includes all post-agrarian societal designations such as “post-industrial”, “advanced”, “modern”, and “developed”; all of which describe human populations that rely heavily upon nonrenewable natural resources.
(2) Estimated US nonrenewable materials (minerals) as a percentage of total US mineral utilization in the year 1800: US per capita mineral use in 1800 was ~1500 lbs. - http://www.mii.org/pdfs/Minerals1776vsToday.pdf. Total US energy consumption in 1800 was .47 quadrillion BTUs, all generated from biomass [wood] - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb1701.xls. Given that the energy content of wood averages ~20 million BTUs per cord - http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/heating_value_wood, ~23.5 million cords of wood were used that year for “energy generation” purposes alone; this equates to ~4.43 cords/person on average, given an 1800 US population of 5.3 million - http://www.measuringworth.com/. A cord of hardwood weighs ~5000 lbs.; a cord of soft wood weighs ~3000 lbs - http://www.csgnetwork.com/logweight.html; assuming only 3,000 lbs./cord, the 4.43 cords/person equates to 13,300 lbs. of energy-related wood use per capita in 1800. The 13,300 lbs. figure does not include wood used for building and construction purposes; nor does it include agricultural material flows into the economy that year. Even so, the 1,500 lbs. of mineral use combined with the 13,300 lbs. of energy-related wood use produce a total of nearly 15,000 lbs. of material resources used per person in 1800, of which approximately 90% were renewable. It can be readily asserted that with the inclusion of “non-energy” wood use and agricultural material use, well over 90% of the material resources flowing into the US economy in 1800 were renewable; less than 10% were nonrenewable.
(3) Estimated US nonrenewable materials (minerals) as a percentage of total US mineral utilization in the year 2007: the 2006 percentage of renewable materials flowing into the US economy from the Wagner USGS study was ~5% (see “the Mineral Mountain” and pgs. 20-24); nonrenewables accounted for approximately 95% of the materials flowing into the US economy that year; “Economic Drivers of Mineral Supply”, Lori Wagner et al., USGS, 2002 - http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-335/of02-335.pdf.
(4) 2008 data from “2008 Mineral Baby”, Mineral Information Institute, 2009 - http://www.mii.org/pdfs/2009miiMineralsBaby.pdf; 1800 data from “The American Lifestyle”, pg. 3 (1776 estimate of 1200 pounds per capita extrapolated to 1500 pounds per capita in 1800); Mineral Information Institute, 2006 - http://www.mii.org/pdfs/Minerals1776vsToday.pdf.
(5) Lawrence Smith estimates that 1.2 billion people currently reside in industrialized countries; from “Growth and Dispersal: A Planet on the Move”, (The Population Institute), 2006 - .
(6) The term “Nature”, as used here, refers to the inestimable number of physical, chemical, geological, and biological processes and phenomena that define the physical world in which we live; neither consciousness nor a physical manifestation is attributed to “Nature”.
(7) Colin Campbell explains the depletion function associated with nonrenewable natural resources and provides examples pertaining to oil depletion in “The Coming Oil Crisis”, pgs. 95-97; Colin J. Campbell, Multi-Science Publishing Company & Petroconsultants S.A; 1988.
(8) “Peak” NNR production (extraction) does not imply imminent “exhaustion”. At peak, approximately half of the ultimately recoverable resource still remains to be extracted. The post-peak half of the resource is simply increasingly more energy-intensive, resource-intensive, and financially expensive to extract than the pre-peak half.
(9) Global NNR Scarcity Analysis and Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis data sources:
- “Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009”, USGS, 2009 - http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2009/mcs2009.pdf;
- “Mineral Commodity Summaries (history)”, USGS, 2009 - http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/;
- “Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States”, USGS, 2009 - http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/;
- “Estimated Primary Energy Consumption in the United States, Selected Years, 1635-1945”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb1701.xls;
- “Primary Energy Consumption by Source”, 1949-2008”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html;
- “World Primary Energy Production by Source, 1970-2006” - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html;
- “Crude Oil Production and Crude Oil Well Productivity, 1954-2008”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0502.xls;
- “Petroleum Overview, 1949-2008”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0501.xls
- “Natural Gas Overview, 1949-2008”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0601.xls;
- “Coal Overview, 1949-2008”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0701.xls;
- “Crude Oil Domestic First Purchase Prices, 1949-2008, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0518.xls;
- “Natural Gas Wellhead, City Gate, and Import Prices, 1949-2008”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0607.xls;
- “Coal Prices, 1949-2008”, EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0708.xls;
- “World Proved Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates”, EIA, 3 March 2009 (I used arithmetic averages) - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html; worldwide coal reserves range from 662 BST (Rutledge) to 930 BST (EIA)—I took the average;
- “World Energy Use (2003)”, Arthur Smith, 2005 (year 1900 data) - http://www.altenergyaction.org/mambo/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=11
- “On American Sustainability”, pgs. 45-48; Chris Clugston, 2009 - http://www.wakeupamerika.com/PDFs/On-American-Sustainability.pdf.
- “Minerals Depletion”, Dr. L. David Roper, 2010 - http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/minerals.htm.
- “Compound Interest Calculator - http://www.1728.com/compint.htm;
- “The Inflation Calculator” - http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi.
(10) All price levels are inflation adjusted to year 2000 USD using “The Inflation Calculator” - http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi.
(11) For an explanation of the Verhulst logistics function and its applicability to projecting NNR depletion see – “Depletion Theory”, Dr. L. David Roper, 1976 - http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/DepletTh.pdf and “Verhulst Function for Modeling Mineral Depletion”, Dr. L. David Roper, 2009 - http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/VerhulstFunction.htm.
(12) The projected 2030 annual global NNR extraction level was calculated by extrapolating the current (2007 or 2008) annual global NNR extraction level out to the year 2030 using the pre-recession (2000-2008) compound annual growth rate. The projected peak global NNR extraction level was determined by applying Verhulst logistics modeling (curve fitting) to historic annual global NNR extraction level data and the USGS global NNR “reserve base” estimate (the larger of the two USGS estimates of ultimately recoverable resources).
(13) NNR price levels increased during the pre-recession years of the 21st century, thereby indicating that “total” global NNR supply, including recycled NNRs, failed to keep pace with total global NNR demand.
(14) “Continuously Less and Less—the New American Reality, pg. 12, Chris Clugston, 2009 - http://www.wakeupamerika.com/PDFs/Continuously-Less-and-Less.pdf.
(15) See “Liebig’s Law of the Minimum”, Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element.
(16) “Continuously Less and Less—the New American Reality, pgs. 16-19, Chris Clugston, 2009 - http://www.wakeupamerika.com/PDFs/Continuously-Less-and-Less.pdf.
(17) “Continuously Less and Less—the New American Reality, pgs. 16-25, Chris Clugston, 2009 - http://www.wakeupamerika.com/PDFs/Continuously-Less-and-Less.pdf
(18) See “Continuously Less and Less—the New American Reality, pgs. 34-36, for a discussion on America’s impending societal collapse. Conflicts over remaining natural resources, both NNRs and RNRs, will become increasingly prevalent on both national and international levels. Chris Clugston, 2009 - http://www.wakeupamerika.com/PDFs/Continuously-Less-and-Less.pdf.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Thanks, Chris!
As I was reading this, the thought occurred to me that perhaps the reason so many minerals show the same patterns is because there are a number of factors that act to influence the price and extraction rate of many minerals simultaneously. These include:
1. Oil price and oil availability. If oil is high priced, it will tend to send the cost of minerals extracted with it up. If oil is not available, extraction will tend to decline.
2. Availability of credit. If credit is readily available, prices of all commodities will tend to be bid up, as consumers try to buy more houses and cars, and businesses expand. Amount produced will also tend to rise, but, if other commodities (like oil used in production) have risen in price, the higher prices will not result in a corresponding increase in production.
3. Availability of capital. If capital is limited in total (perhaps in part because of a scale back in credit), what capital is available must be rationed among all projects. If one resource declines in production, others are likely to decline also.
4. Improvements in efficiency of mineral extraction. Technology improvements will tend to get applied to more than one kind mineral at the same time, leading to a long term declining trend in costs, if oil prices are stable.
Of course, if there are considerations like this that are causing prices and production to move together in the past, it is likely that the same will be true going forward. And as oil gets more scarce, or capital gets more scarce, production of a large number of minerals may take place at roughly the same time--producing the kind of result you are showing.
Some of the small resources, like lithium, have prices that fluctuate, and may have special circumstances relating to the handful of places in the world, so their results may appear different. But their long term result will still be affected by the same things that affect the others, plus whatever special considerations apply (like expected ramp-up for use in car batteries). Since this analysis doesn't consider those uses, the element may look plentiful, when, in fact, it may act more like the others.
This paper is a really important contribution to the site-we don't see stuff as compelling every week!
Somebody please tell me what the abbreviations RGM and PGM mean. I'm guessing platinum group metals for the second one, but the rest of the paper is so detailed it doesn't seem as if these things would be grouped together rather than each metal having it's own summary.
Excellent article, Chris and Gail.
Gail, you raise many valid points. On your point 1 above, if oil is not available, then the economy will likely contract significantly, reducing the demand for minerals, so the price may be volatile, though it may not rise significantly.
On another point, local sources of rare minerals may be developed/redeveloped in response to reduced exports from overseas suppliers like China;
http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/328-7da-3-19
Since this testimony is from a vested party, add liberal amounts of salt...
Of course, energy shortfalls will also apply to local extraction and processing.
Gail,
You are absolutely correct that many different factors influence the price and extraction rate. Geological availability is only one factor.
Although I believe this is an important topic I must comment that the analysis above is far too simplistic for my taste. The NNR scarcity level definitions given in the table above completely fail to capture the detailed information that is available from the sources given. As a case in point I will take a look at mercury with plots from the US Minerals Databrowser. Chris claims that mercury falls into the category of Extreme NNR scarcity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Below we see that mercury does fit the pattern of decreasing production with decreasing prices in the last century and decreasing production with increasing prices this century. But the story is much more subtle than the picture painted by that simple analysis.
On the left we see that global production has indeed peaked but the price trend is not a simple 'down and then up'. The increase in the last few years is essentially noise compared to the price fluctuations in previous decades. It is not reasonable to assume that geological limits are responsible for the price fluctuations in mercury. On the right we see the 'Price Evolution' plot that gives the economist's view of the situation. By plotting price against production for the last 50 years we get a sense of trends in the demand elasticity and mining response to price fluctuations. For most minerals, the trend of the last 50 years has been toward increased production and lower prices -- toward the lower right in the chart; moves straight up signal speculation; moves to the upper right signal tight supplies; moves to the upper left signal actual shortages; and moves to the lower left signal reduced demand.
Mercury is suffering from reduced demand.
If further proof were needed of mercury's status, one only needs to actually read the USGS Minerals Commodty Summary for mercury:
For comparison with a commodity that is experiencing geologic limits, let us examine the situation with gold.
As we can see, gold has experienced several peaks in production and once again appears to be just past a peak. The Price Evolution chart makes it appear that we have returned to a 1970's style geologically induced shortage of gold. (Perhaps another speculative spike will occur in the next couple of years.) From everything else I have read, it does indeed appear that we have hit 'peak gold'. Comments from the Minerals Commodity Summary seem to concur:
It is the "lower average grades and rising costs" statement that is important here. The USGS essentially admits geological limitations even though they may not be waving a banner and attracting our attention to it.
I point out mercury and gold here because I feel they demonstrate the need for a more careful analysis of the data when talking about mineral scarcity. But the same is true for every mineral on the list. The Peak Oil crowd is far to willing to toss out a tremendous amount of careful research on the part of government agency scientists and statisticians. I think this is foolish, especially when it is easy to demonstrate that the kind of simplistic scarcity analysis in this article has some major flaws.
I agree that mineral scarcity is an important topic. But it does no help to paint the picture as: "Ahhh! We're doomed!" It is much better to present a careful assessment, mineral by mineral, to figure out which minerals are likely to experience shortages first and what substitutes exist -- exactly what the USGS reports attempt to provide. And what the US Minerals Databrowser attempts to make accessible to everyone.
Best Hopes for careful analysis of the available data.
-- Jon
Jonathon, what do you think of this: http://www.pebblepartnership.com/node/224
They think there is a LOT of gold...
Nick,
Nice to see you back. And congrats on the media attention.
I am not a geologist and am not in a position to evaluate the extent of the deposits at the Pebble Mine. Looking at the historic production of gold I see that we have had previous peaks that appeared to be geological, only to see subsequent peaks at even higher levels of production. If you read the Minerals Yearbook carefully you will see that energy costs are one of the factors slowing production in South Africa and other countries. If the price of gold goes up faster than the price of energy I wouldn't be surprised if we could eek out a higher high for a few years. But it does seem clear with gold that we have looked hard in all the accessible places. I would be surprised if anyone uncovered huge amounts of high quality ore that was profitable to mine at today's prices.
Gold is a little different from other commodities in that we 'use up' very little. In fact, most of the gold that has ever been mined and purified has been put back into the ground in vaults as a store of value. Gold's value is much more dependent upon human perception and less so on it's industrial utility.
Having said all that, I also have to go on record saying that I hope and pray that the Pebble Mine permit does not go through.
I went fishing up in Egegik on Bristol Bay a couple of summers ago with some friends who have a set net permit. That fishery, the largest salmon fishery in the world with headwaters up the Kvichak river in lake Iliamni stands to be severely affected by the Pebble Mine. I would hate to see that fantastically pristine, truly frontier landscape at risk all for the sake of some copper and gold.
According to the Minerals Yearbook there are many possible substitutes for copper as it used today and gold, as I said, is barely needed at all. Yes gold is amazing stuff and folks like to have it buried in their back yards. But if you ever go up to Bristol Bay during salmon season I think you'll agree that Bristol Bay might be one of those places worth protecting. The Obama administration seemed to agree in their offshore drilling announcement.
Best Hopes for protecting a few of the Last Best Places.
-- Jon
Nice to see you back. And congrats on the media attention.
Thanks! Are you referring to Forbes?
it does seem clear with gold that we have looked hard in all the accessible places.
I've been seeing some claims about gold (and other metals) in inaccessible places, that is, the sea floor. What do you think of those?
gold, as I said, is barely needed at all
I agree. I'm not familiar with Bristol Bay, but it sounds worth protecting.
Yes, I had read your post about Forbes.
As for metals on the sea floor. I have no doubt that it is technically feasible at least on a small scale but I haven't seen any outfits run a profitable seafloor mining operation yet. I'm from Missouri and you'll have to 'show me' that it makes economic sense to do this.
That 'show me' attitude is also why I like to focus on what we know has happened in the past in terms of production rather than focus on production possibilities in the unknowable future.
you'll have to 'show me' that it makes economic sense to do this.
Well, analysis of limits to growth can be very misleading if it doesn't look at resources which are currently not economic, but will become so when current resources become more expensive. If we don't do at least some analysis of the resources which are currently uneconomic, then an LTG projection can only say "there is a possible problem - we don't know how large it is".
For a good example, we need look only as far as coal. There are very, very large resources which are currently not economic. For instance, Alaska has 2-5 trillion tons of coal, and very likely has 200 billion which are recoverable (a 200 year supply for the US). And, yet, it's not being used at all right now, because it's significantly more expensive than lower-48 coal.
Closer to home, the Illinois Basin has 150 billion tons which are being ignored right now because of a relatively small cost differential due to sulfur content. Analysts like the Energy Watch Group take a superficial look at production statistics, and declare that Illinois coal has peaked - that's just....silly.
Fascinating, and frightening; this article will keep me awake.
One thought is that, it presents a cogent reason for many otherwise anamolous situations today. Outsourcing of labor, elimination of America's productive factories, and our global positioning in the Middle East, of course.
Given this filter, we can see that at least some of the uncomfortable realities of the past 25 years may have been planned, or could have been planned, by those at higher levels who had this analysis available. In short, our leaders realize the impossibility of continuing forever, and have decided they should do their best to keep things going as long as they could.
I am still debating with myself whether this is entirely rational, or even sane. If anyone can shed some addtional light on this, we can have a discussion.
I have forwarded the link to a number of friends who are reputedly bright. If they have any insights, I will add to this thread. Otherwise, this is about as grim a posting as we have ever had.
Good luck to us all!
Craig
Maybe now they might but all these trends were published by the Limits to Growth team in 1972.
But the good times just kept on rolling and any "Limits" seemed so far away. We all ignored the warnings. The politicians and their Big Business minders ridiculed it all. Now the debt has come due in more ways than one.
Add this essay to the very obvious "Increasing Global Renewable Resource Scarcity" (fresh water, farmland, fisheries, forests) and the scale of the problems becomes frightening.
Zaph - You can extrapolate this dynamic all across the board for the US, including our waste stream being off-shored.
This is why I say that everyone living in the US, at all economic levels benefits from Empire and are therefore complicit. Obviously some more than others.
This is why I think it is hypocritical for Americans to call for peace on earth and cheap stuff all in the same breath.
Which I why I don't call for peace on earth. Or cheap stuff. Though I'm happy to have much of the former and lots of the latter, I'm sure it's temporary.
Eeyore, I'm impressed -- we actually agree on something. ;-)
Unfortunately the kind of hypocrisy you've noted is one of the few infinitely renewable resources the US has available just now. My favorite example is the huge brand-new SUV I saw a year ago rumbling down the street, empty except for the driver, and a bumper sticker on the back: "Live Simply That Others Might Simply Live."
Thanks JMG
Saw a bumpersticker in the parking lot of Trader Joes (for those who don't know them they are a chain of grocery stores that only carry goods from around the world), it said "Shop Local".
It`s a thermodynamic thing. A disipative process is echoed again and again. First England & coal, then U.S. & coal, then oil....again, echoing first to US and Europe then Japan, now onto India and China. The dissipative process is self sustaining for a while but obviously not forever. I think of it like a rock falling into the water and the waves spread out in larger circumferences but smaller intensities. Mopeds= smaller intensities.
The illusion is that we are in control. We are not. We are dancing to the tune that energy plays. We can only dissipate, helplessly, hopelessly, addictively, tragically, knowing the final, fatal outcome all along. But that is also how life is lived (OK I`m a lit major!) so what else, is a sense, is new??
Well done. Thanks for doing all this legwork.
Greer talks of the age of Scarcity Industrialism, which is what this report reminded me of. In this sort of economy, activity is still (mostly) industrial but the resources become increasingly dear.
The Age of Scarcity Industrialism
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/age-of-scarcity-industria...
The Dawn of Scarcity Industrialism
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/09/dawn-of-scarcity-industri...
Past that stage come the Salvage Societies:
The Age of Salvage Societies
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/age-of-salvage-societies....
Finally comes the Ecotechnic Society, in which the remaining humans are forced to live within limits of energy and resources using technologies that require little of either.
Toward An Ecotechnic Society
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/toward-ecotechnic-society...
This is all inside how he has applied the theory of biological succession to the human condition.
Civilization and Succession
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2007/09/civilization-and-successi...
Finally, a Deindustrial Reading List:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/02/deindustrial-reading-list...
An excellent comment, and review. Thank you.
Earlier this evening, Science Channel had a show on Terraforming Mars. How we are going to get there, and what we are going to use for power was never questioned or discussed. It was assumed that we would, somehow, be able to do that.
Ray Kurzweil argues that we are about to metamorphize into some new, half man/half computer incarnation that he calls the coming singularity. Never does he discuss immediate needs for energy, though he pays lip service to the notion of entropy.
What does anyone suppose are the chances that we, being all of the civilizations of Planet Earth today, will have a fusion project off the ground and running before PO and other shortages stop the show? For anyone responding, consider what clear rational basis is there for any specific timescale?
We are entering a most dangerous time; it will be epochal at the very least, if not cataclysmic. Some of my realtives have a faith that God will take care of everything, or at least of them. What I see as warning signs, they take as fulfillment of prophesy. And so they go on, blindly continuing their travel, and helping to choose the direction we all must go.
Insanity!
Craig
Yes, energy is a problem, but it's not a fatal one. People like you who promote some kind of apocalyptic fantasy distract everyone else from the real issues. Resource scarcity is a threat that will likely hurt us, but it's absurd to imagine it will mean the end of technological civilization.
Look: let's imagine an unrealistically harsh scenario in which all the planet's oil fields completely run out over the next year. That would have terrible economic consequences, of course, but we'd be able to substitute. If nothing else, we'd just derive hydrocarbons from coal using Fischer–Tropsch and other processes. We have a great deal of coal. Production would take a while to come online, and we'd see huge and permanent price increases. But the most critical hydrocarbon users, the agricultural and transportation sectors, would remain online.
Yes, increased coal use would accelerate climate change, which would eventually cause further ecological and economic problems. But even the worst legitimate global warming scenarios, in which both ice caps disappear over the next 100 years, technological civilization does not disappear. Of course it'd be better to avoid it, but we're not talking about a Mad Max scenario.
You also neglect the energy to be had by using fission nuclear power. Exploration for uranium and thorium has been minimal, and even so, current known reserves are vast (especially with reprocessing). Actual reserves are likely an order of magnitude greater.
Whew!
I was worried about my breakfast there for a while.
Me and about 6.7 Billion others.
" even the worst legitimate global warming scenarios"
Ummm, it sounds as if you are not very well read in gw scenarios. Try Mark Lynas's "Six Degrees," Peter Ward's "Under a Green Sky," or anything recent by Lovelock. Sea rise, bad as it might be, is the least of our worries. Sudden massive methane release from the Siberian Shelf could happen any time, accelerating warming beyond anything the major models imagine.
On agriculture, climate chaos and water scarcity are likely to be the real limiting factors, there.
Yes, I'm familiar with the usual 100-meter sea level rise doomsday scenarios. Yes, it would hurt. A lot. Some agriculture would fail. We might run short of fresh water in some places, or have unbearable surpluses in others. There would be famine. There would be migrations. There would be wars. Many would die. We should avoid that outcome if we can.
But I don't to see any evidence that our civilization would fall. Half of Europe died in the black death and civilization didn't fall there: and they didn't even have the benefits of modern technology.
A real civilization-ender would be a 50-mile-wide asteroid. Global warming can't compete with that.
So many paths toward extinction, so few to re-establish a timely move toward 350 parts per million CO2.
Note that I said nothing about 100 meter sea level rise. Many of the larges cities on earth (Shanghai, London, New York...) will be under water at far smaller levels.
But well before this, really bad things can happen, and yes, things worse than a major asteroid impact. In most major extinctions, the main culprit is now thought to be sudden massive release of greenhouse gasses. This is what we have been doing, and we are triggering further releases (wiki "clathrate gun", for one). Without a viable ecosystem, we will not survive, no matter what technofantasists may tell you. We are already deep into a major, human caused, extinction even, with extinction rates somewhere around 10,000 a year per million species above background rates.
Humans are, of course, merely one species.
A recent study predicted 70% desertification of now-arable lands in just 15 years.
If China cleans up its multitude of dirty coal plants, something it is planning to do since its citizens are choking to death on the particulates, the withdrawal of this source of aerosols (which has been causing global dimming and masking the full force of the global warming) could make global temperatures suddenly (withing a year) jump by up to two degrees. I don't think any models have predicted what the outcome of this kind of sudden, extreme jump would be, but it's not likely to be pretty.
The Black Death happened in the context of an intact global ecosystem and, vast untapped resources, relatively stable climate system... We will not have these advantages going forward.
The Peter Ward book points out that one thing that happened in previous sudden climate changes and consequent mass extinctions is that oceanic thermo-halide circulation shuts down, cutting off oxygen sources to the deep and so killing nearly everything in the oceans. The dead matter, attacked by anaerobic bacteria, exude huge quantities of deadly H2S gas that drifts over the land killing everything it settles on.
But if you prefer to dream about asteroids instead of these scenarios, please be my guest.
yet another great post, thanks. Dohboi, could you click my user name and drop me a line?
best
Well said.
A recent study predicted 70% desertification of now-arable lands in just 15 years.
Could you give us a link?
My estimation is that thier survival in large part was DUE to the lack of modern technology.My great grandparents could have survived almost anything the economy could throw at them so long as they could get a very few iron or steel tools in exchange for part of thier crops, and enough cash to pay thier property taxes.
Even though the older folks in the family are knowledgeable about most of the methods they used to make it from one year to the next, I'm not at all sure we could still do it-we may have forgotten too much, we don't have enough locally adapted pure line crop seed,or enough varieties, and truth be told, we probably don't have the physical and mental toughness any more either.Some of our houses don't even have chimneys, and we have no draft animals-my personal if tshtf plans are dependent on obtaining at least fifty gallons of diesel a year,and keeping our tractors running that long too.
By then if we are still around we can obtain either fuel and spare parts or some draft animals,by devious means if absolutely necessary.
Let's be clear on the energy thing.
Energy is not be created, only harvested.
Any energy harvesting process has contraints, like: EROEI, Rate of production (and rate of production growth).
Energy Harvesting systems are further constrained by certain applicable resources, be they orbital slots, hilltops, fuel rods, mountain valleys, copper, etc etc.
The interesting thing about the peak-oil impact is the rate of change of available energy.
To offset the decline (in the order of a few percent per year of crude), we'll need to set up lots of new energy harvest systems, in increasing numbers.
While this is arguably feasible, many observers wold not agree that such a rollout is likely, given the present political and economic realities.
Another aspect to this is that the current energy system, liquid fuels, involve a vast stock of motor vehicles which use it. This 'fleet' has a roughly 20-year replacement cycle time, and is is difficult to see how some significant proportion of the fleet could realistically be replaced quick enough to offset the risk that much of the food-and-goods transport network of the modern world would be unavailable.
Sorry for the lack of hard numbers to chew on, maybe try googling the several years of oildrum back-issues, there's some tasty brainfood there.
To offset the decline (in the order of a few percent per year of crude), we'll need to set up lots of new energy harvest systems, in increasing numbers.
Not really. We have plenty of electricity. It's less a question of harvesting more energy, and more a question of dealing with increasingly scarce liquid fuels.
a vast stock of motor vehicles which use it. This 'fleet' has a roughly 20-year replacement cycle time
Light vehicles in the US less than 6 years old account for 50% of vehicle miles traveled.
the risk that much of the food-and-goods transport network of the modern world would be unavailable.
That network uses about 25% of oil consumption in the US. Light vehicles overall account for 45% of oil consumption: their utilization could be doubled with carpooling in a matter of months, freeing up whatever fuel was needed by the freight network.
The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
We imagine that we have the ability to make Mars habitable - but why can't we just keep the Earth habitable...?
;-)
What makes you think we can't do both?
science fiction is not real life.
Zaphod, Kurzweil is simply rehashing the myth of the Rapture in technological drag. The Singularity is his Second Coming, outer space is his heaven, and his imaginary robo-bodies are the glorified bodies of the saved. It's not a reasonable prediction, it's a mythic narrative using the primary religious symbols of our time -- the symbols of progress and the machine.
Mind you, the more tightly we paint ourselves into a corner, the more passionately people will insist on the hope of salvation through progress and technology. William Catton compared it, in Overshoot, to a cargo cult: having never grasped what was actually behind the arrival of all those goodies, people go through the motions of building an airfield in the hope that this will induce another round of C-47s to land.
Aangel, thank you! I'd been going to make a comment about the transition to scarcity industrialism, but I think you beat me to it.
Surprises.
Aluminum is scarce. Lithium is not.
Aluminum is frozen energy. DesertTech solar power creates aluminum.
Lithium stores energy. For electric cars etc. We might have to go with Boron oxidation/reduction for energy storage.
Excellent opportunity for Mr. Small to go out with a portable UV lamp and look for Scheelite
The Global NNR Scarcity Assessment is an economic analysis based on historical data. It is saying that lithium has been abundant based on past demand and production increases. It is not saying that lithium will be abundant if we use it to manufacture 60 million EV and PHEV batteries per year.
Note that the Global NNR Supply Shortfall Assessment projects global oil production to peak at 35 Gb/yr or 96 Mb/d which I rather doubt for crude oil. Since the current production is listed as 31.5 Gb/year (86 Mb/d), I suspect the author's label of "oil" actually refers to world liquid fuels production (crude oil, natural gas condensates, propane, ethanol, biodiesel and other natural gas liquids).
Doesn't add up.
Scarcity/value=high price, abundance=low price(so the economists tell us)
Lithium cost $300 a pound compared to $50 a pound for uranium (energy equivalent to 10 tons of coal) or aluminum at $1.15 per pound or copper at $2 per pound. Silver is $250 per pound. Gold is $16000 per pound.
Niobium, tantalum, molybdenum, cadmium is ~$50 a pound.
The world demand for lithium is 21000 tons per year and a $300 per pound price.
.17 pounds of lithium worth $51 can hold 1 Kwh of electricity the same as 1 pound of coal worth 1.25 cents.
Silver production is 21000 tons per year and a $260 price. Silver can be sold
as money in Swiss banks. Mexico still uses silver coins as legal tender.
Why is lithium so valuable if it is not scarce?
Just a guess maj but maybe it's because the folks who sell lithium won't sell it for less than $300/lb? Who controls the litlium production? Could there be an effective lithium cartel out there? I don't know...honest questions (as opposed to the usual smart *ss questions I toss at you).
Scarcity/value=high price, abundance=low price(so the economists tell us)
Lithium cost $300 a pound compared to $50 a pound for uranium
1) using $ as a metric is flawed. Unless CDO's, fake accounting, et la are true reflections on reality.
2) 300/50 = 6
Atomic weight of Li - call it 7.
Atomic weight of uranium - call it 238
238/7 ~= 34
So for every 34 lbs of U you have the same number of atoms as a lbs of Li.
Based on an atom count and an ability to go buy Li at Wal-Mart I'd say Lithium is "more common"*
*Ignores toys made with Uranium that one may be able to get at Wal-Mart due to suppliers choices.
Nonsense. Of course commodities are subject to short-term bubbles; that's just noise in the signal. Long-term averages don't lie.
It is A metric, but not necessarily a GOOD metric.
What is the processing chain for lithium? The price of a pound of metal versus a pound in ore might be quite different.
Comparing the battery-value of lithium to the energy-value of coal makes little sense. Once is a reusable, high-density power store, the other is a one-time, low-density power store. One serves a high-growth high-margin market for portable power, the other serves a low-growth, low-margin market for baseload power.
As with oil, the scarcity should be viewed as a function of price. If production elasticity is good at some price point (i.e., a higher price will readily bring to viability vast increases in supply), then the situation is different than if there is no secondary source and the supply will get increasingly expensive to produce at an increasing rate forever.
Huh?
Bromine scarce?
Metal Information Institute.
There is also more gold in the oceans than all the existing gold on land, but that doesn't mean it can be extracted economically. There is no commercial production of bromine from ocean water anywhere in the world, it all comes from bromine rich brines, which are of limited supply.
We could, in theory, get almost all our metal needs from seawater, but at unbelievable energy cost to extract and separate them all. Like oil shale, it is a large resource, but not an economic reserve.
This is an analysis based on their price and production characteristics of elements. If they "act" scarce, they are put in the column called scarce. It is not based on relative abundance, or amount of historical or expected future demand.
The issue I noted in the first comment at the end of this post is that all of the elements tend to move together in price and production, because of a number of issues that affect pretty much all elements simultaneously. These include
1. Oil Price (used in production of most all)
2. Credit availability (affecting demand and ability to finance new mines))
3. Capital availability (affecting ability to finance new mines)
4. Improved technology (affecting price and production)
Because of these common effects, I would expect price and production to tend to move together, both historically, and going forward, and that in fact, is what his analysis is showing. While there may be lots of some of these elements, because of external factors, their cost and production tends to rise or fall with all others.
Some elements will be too small, or have some particular characteristic that they don't follow the group characteristic. Also, in this analysis, one doesn't know anything about planned future uses, like lithium batteries.
Thanks for clarifying this. I was wondering why Titanium was listed at very high probability of scarcity. It is very abundent worldwide. It is also extremely costly to process, both in energy and capital.
Funny that no one asked about salt, since sea water is salty and can be easily transformed. It is the large salt deposits, of course, that are running low.
Craig
Roger that Paul. Once again it's good to remember that the volume of any natural resource estimate will always be price dependent. Any estimated value of a recoverable resource that does not include price assumptions is meaningless. Doesn't matter what it is: oil, lithium, mangos.
I have always been fascinated by the capability of Ascidians to concentrate Vanadium at very high levels compared to the surrounding seawater.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2108/zsj.13.489
The Mechanism of Accumulation of Vanadium by Ascidians: Some Progress towards an Understanding of this Unusual Phenomenon
I have wondered if we could learn how to recreate this process by genetically modifying marine organism or creating completely artificial organisms, (see Craig Venter Artificial Genomics), to do this with other metals.
We could release little baby tuna, harvest them later, and squeeze the * very scarce * mercury out of them.
Bromine is most economically produced from brine. You can get it from seawater, but the most cost-effective approach would be to first evaporate the seawater into brine using salt pans (meaning the sun provides the energy, but in a very low-tech (ancient) way.) This, needless to say, is not an insurmountable problem. I suspect that if bromine is in short supply, that is more of a plant capacity issue than one of the resource being almost gone. This in turn means we have just a tiny bit of an "apples and oranges" problem with the above analysis, but only wrt this one thing.
Apologies for the broken link, Bromine scarce?
The problem is getting bromine out of the seawater. We've all heard the one about all the hydrogen in the ocean. Invent a sieve for bromine and you're a rich fellow.
Does anybody know how much of the production decrease/slower rate of production increase of the minerals listed is just due to things like conservation or "voluntary" reduction in consumption? The reason I'm asking is because I was a bit surprised to see mercury in the extremely scarce column although it does makes sense based on the way those terms are defined.
I started thinking about this because I used to work in the fluorescent lighting industry which uses mercury in every fluorescent bulb. During that time, there was a big push among the major lighting companies to reduce the amount of mercury used. If this was going on with other industrial uses of mercury, that would drive down demand. And while it is true that the price has gone up in the 21st century, it is definitely not high compared to 20th century prices - http://mazamascience.com/Minerals/USGS/output/xvar1_yvar1_zvar1_all_merc...
See my lengthy reply above.
Great post. Liebig limits, anyone?
The "best first" nature of extraction leads directly to this sort of pattern, I guess; but with net energy quantity and flexibility declining, it should make the backslopes pretty abrupt and discontinuous. And as the "best" inputs to keep our evolved infrastructure going start becoming unobtainium, things will start to cascade with knock-on effects.
And that's without considering easily-triggerable phase transitions in human behavior like the nationalistic hoarding of strategic neeners. Our "just in time" systems will show very little tolerance for hiatus, and that's just what's coming. If "synergasm" isn't a word yet, I claim it.
Of course, to a very good first approximation, this is good news for every species on the planet.
"Liebig limits, anyone?"
This was exactly my thought. Which of these, if any, will be the crucial shortage that will make all other shortages essentially irrelevant? It may be impossible to know, but these days I'm guessing it will actually be usable water. If water shortages--whether because of polluted sources, loss of aquifers, or shift in rain paterns--cause wide spread desertification (see recent study on this http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/un-warns-of-70-percent-desertif...), the resulting famines and direct death from water scarcity will make all these other shortages irrelevant.
And this clear back in 1842!
Craig
This article is unfairly misleading. Makes inappropriate extrapolations based on historical data.
You realize that cement is mainly made from limestone, which is a sedimentary rock?
Copper shows exponential economical reserve growth with relation to price (then again, so do all minerals - but this one is really pronounced).
Personal automobiles powered by lithium is almost as silly as by oil, but electric bikes are not silly. But I believe in supercapacitors more than I do batteries.
Iron ore is most certainly not scarce. Spreading lies about this one is just immoral.
Please explain how "Nitrogen (Ammonia)" can be classified as scarce. That's like me saying apples are scarce.
More minerals than we can possibly imagine are located on the surface of our oceans, but we're too busy exploring space outside of our planet to begin looking there. There are known faults underwater constantly spewing out molten copper and iron.
Silicon will never be expensive. It's a major input for photovoltaics.
Electronics ought to be recycled more. But we don't need copper for circuits. We can use aluminum, though we need to worry about oxidation a bit.
Don't get me started on uranium. It needs to be 10x more expensive before we have the will to start making progress on anything interesting.
Sulfur? I don't think I need to comment on this one. Why don't you add sodium to the list too?
"Why don't you add sodium to the list too?" lol you did
See my lengthy critique above.
I must agree that the table is bizarre - when did organic nitrogen become a non renewable resource? Diamonds are not scarce?
I think the article is confusing a bottleneck ie demand exceeds rate of supply for some transient or practical other reason, with a resource limit. I suppose it's useful to track these issues, but we might as well just say there are way too many people.
The Haber process is also concidered to be the fixation of nitrogen. Concidering the energy involved in this process is a magnitude higher than the mining of P and K, I would assume that with future energy constraints nitrogen, as a fertilizer, is going to be problematic.
There are no future energy constraints. There are real and looming oil constraints, and to a lesser extent, future hydrocarbon constraints.
But energy? We can derive all the raw energy we want from nuclear power. Uranium and thorium reserves are staggering, especially if you take into account reprocessing and deposits viable at ten or a hundred times the current price level. Nuclear power is still economical at even a hundred times current fuel costs because fuel is such a small part of a power plant's budget.
If you don't like nuclear for some hysterical reason, think about orbital solar.
If a resource requires a huge amount of energy to extract, that's fine. We can make the energy. Claiming we're going to be energy-limited in the future is the post-hoc rationale for fantasizing about returning to a pre-industrial society.
Sorry: it's not going to happen.
I like Power.
Nuclear will do.
However,Uranium might be in short supply..
(Nod towards fast breeders and Thorium reactors.)
You're mistaking a temporary logistical problem for a fundamental shortage.
At current price levels and production rates, we have enough uranium for a century. Roughly, every time you increase the price by 10 times, you see a 300-fold increase in supply. Nuclear power would still be viable with a two-order-of-magnitude increase in fuel cost. With 300 * 300 = 90,000 times greater supply, we certainly have enough uranium for the foreseeable future.
The energy problem is non-existent.
Good to hear.
Love the thought.
But I won't be lulled to sleep.
Would I be wrong to understand that as your saying, "facts be damned, I'm keeping my doom and gloom!"? Or would I be better off with "I choose not to believe anyone who contradicts my preconceived apocalyptic notions"?
Where have I heard the "She'll be right Mate" talk?
Oh yes.
In my country, Rhodesia.
The frontiers of a civilisation, collapsing inward.
That creaking, hollow sound?
Could it be our flagship sinking?
Does the center not hold?
I am alive.
Can I pull it off again as I have millions of times before?
Mr Darwin always has the last word.
Or was it Rome?
or was it....?
You mentioned Fischer-Tropsch, and now nuclear. I think you are not taking into account the whole systems, EROEI, capital requirements and infrastructure, upstream and downstream costs (disposal, carbon, etc.) needed to make these "solutions" at any meaningful scale, and in the timeframe needed.
It's true we don't have an energy problem, with a small star not too far away, but we do have an energy quality problem. Lucky for us plants can turn sunlight into higher quality energy sources, even without our help. Unfortunately we're also doing our best to get rid of as many plants as possible and replacing multi-functional, multi-yielding, efficient rainforest, with mono-functional, mono-yielding energy-intensive soy, palm and corn fields which erode to aluminum deserts in less than 10 years.
At least we won't run out of aluminum or desert any time soon!
Are you claiming that nuclear power isn't EROEI-positive?
It is. It's very EROEI-positive in fact. Even if Fischer-Tropsch weren't EROEI-positive after all stages of conversion (which it is), the utility of liquid fuels would outweigh the net energy sink.
As for nuclear: I don't need to break out the numbers. We can both accept that coal is EROEI-positive. Nuclear power produces far more power per unit ore than we get from coal. We also need fewer nuclear stations with the consequent decrease in energy needed for the physical generation infrastructure.
If coal is EROEI-positive, nuclear power certainly is.
quotemstr = typical braindead free-market libertarian.
Libs don't believe in physical scarcity.
Under a free market system, scarcity is like...totally impossible, unless the government causes it.
You see, whenever there is a demand for something the market makes it. In fact,
let's say that there is no demand..for pet rocks for example.
The market can make also that work also by creating buyers aka Say's Law.
Supplies cause demand and demand causes supplies.
So how does the ideal market work? It is based on exchanges of equal value based on monetary value. If something has value people with money will out bid people without money. Overtime they become richer and the poor become comparatively poorer. Technology also adds value overall making things a little easier for the losers.
There is even a supply and demand for money itself.
Is the supply of money unlimited? No--that would cause inflation, but everything else is, according to lib theology.
Your idea of a 10 fold increase in price resulting in a 300 fold increase in supply is stupid according to the nuclear industry. The vertical tail of the curve shows a dramatic diminishing returns-a law unknown in libertarian propaganda. Then there's the issue of higher fuel prices making nuclear plants even less economically viable.
You don't know anything about mining economics or the real world, quotemstr.
Just nursery rhymes from Uncle Milty and Ayn Rand.
I find it hilarious that you think I'm a libertarian. I'm a liberal. I voted for Obama. I despise Regan and Bush, and I think capitalism must be strictly regulated. We should invest in alternative energy sources. We should pay for necessary infrastructure investments by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Believe me, I loathe libertarians as much as you do, but it's quite telling that you would paint me with the libertarian brush when I've said nothing to indicate that I subscribe to their views.
But that doesn't mean I'm a crunchy-granola chicken little. I don't believe we should hole up in survival compounds, nor do I support crazy ideas like subverting the democratic process in order to hasten the "die-off".
adopt a dictatorship to hasten the "die-off". I'm for evidence-based assessment of coming shortfalls, but I don't think of it as a given that our way of life is unsustainable or undesirable. On the contrary, we're the luckiest humans to have ever been born. Let's make sure our descendants feel the same way.
As for your uranium production curve --- first of all, the order of magnitude is correct. Second, it doesn't show a full ten-times increase in price, much less a hundred-old one. Finally, fission fuel prices are starting from an artificial low due to a glut of nuclear weapons being converted to reactor fuel.
Also, you did a great job of using a graph from world-nuclear.org without attribution. Classy.
Of course world-nuclear doesn't show a full 10 times increase, because it's idiotic gibberish created out of bullcrap.
You spout libertarianism from every orifice, quotemstr.
I'm surprised you say you're a liberal and I suspect you're only a masquerading teabagger who didn't vote for Donald Regan for President.
You are going to be surprised by the next few years, quotemstr.
The world is going to be running out of a lot of things and you'll get your rising prices for less product.
And you'll call it,inflation.
I don't feel the need to refer to politicians with juvenile nicknames. To any thinking person, the name "Ronald Reagan" is frightening enough.
Also, you continue to ignore the substance of my arguments and hurt insults instead. Do you feel threatened? Is this your way of dealing with the crisis of faith you must be enduring?
You also completely misunderstand the cause of inflation. It has nothing to do with commodities. Furthermore, inflation also increases wages, so it's not a net impoverishment. It's a change of scale, not a change of substance.
I'm going to respond to this because I am a free-market libertarian.
"Libs don't believe in physical scarcity."
There are libertarians who don't believe in physical scarcity - just like there are many liberals and conservatives who don't either. This is a concept that most people in the general population across all political affiliations haven't heard or thought about. I personally know people on the extreme far left who are radical about climate change, but don't believe in any type of resource limits. The best answer I've gotten from them on resource issues is that "we have plenty of resources to make solar panels and wind mills." I do believe in the general concept presented in this paper that natural resources are finite and also believe that we are either at or very near the peak of Hubbert's worldwide oil production curve.
"Under a free market system, scarcity is like...totally impossible, unless the government causes it."
Like no. Scarcity is very possible and can be caused by geological constraints. I do believe that the solutions to resource scarcity(whether NNR as described here or for resources such as oil) will not come from government intervention. The best way to solve these problems is through private enterprise. Another example of this is climate change. I agree that it is real and believe that C02 from human activities is the main driving force. I just disagree with any solution that has the phrase "the government will take care of us" in it. It is true that the government does cause a lot of problems and solutions that have unintended consequences that are worse than what the original problem was.
I don't have time right now to respond to the rest right now, but will try to respond to the other points of your post later on tonight.
When one picks a favorable scenario and misinterprets the result, the outcome looks grand. You are assuming electricity production from uranium remains constant during the next 100 years while the supply of crude oil, natural gas and coal decline. Production will not remain constant until the last atom is extracted. Your scenario is an energy constrained future. In the U.S. you are allocating at least 8% of current total energy consumption to power the country. You should carefully consider the scenario that you are actually advocating: increasing the production of electricity from uranium as the other sources of energy decline and the amount of energy needed to produce NNR's increases. Do not forget to include an exponentially increasing human population causing an increasing demand for energy and resources, and the increased amount of pollution from more nuclear power stations.
You are making the assumption that the price of all other components in the nuclear power industry remain constant, including the massive U.S. subsidy from the Price-Anderson Act. Nuclear power is not price competitive today without externalizing the cost of pollution and risk to victims, tax payers and future generations.
. Nuclear power is not price competitive today without externalizing the cost of pollution and risk to victims, tax payers and future generations.
I agree. OTOH, does that tell us whether we'll continue to externalize costs, and build nuclear? My guess: it will slow down nuclear, but not stop it's growth entirely. Further, if other alternatives proved inadequate (wind and solar, mostly) I'd guess that we'd accept those external costs (or ignore them....).
My guess: the U.S. and world will continue to build nuclear fission power plants. When there is another big accident in the U.S., the U.S. will slap another moratorium on their construction allowing the existing ones to operate. The process will continue until economically fissionable material is in short supply or demand for electricity decreases significantly.
So quotemstr has been a member for almost 4 hours.
Do we NEED a guest villain?
I've got enough work to do today, thanks.
Don't feed the trolls.
Oops... should have read farther on... these guest villains kind of sneak up on you, and it's easy to see them with 20/20 hindsight.
"If a resource requires a huge amount of energy to extract, that's fine. We can make the energy."
Make the energy? You just lost me.
Yes. We can generate electricity in a power plant and convert that energy into whatever form we need. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Sure, and some of us here raise invisible pink unicorns and harness them to run perpetual motion machines. That's an easy enough concept to understand too, right?
"We can generate electricity in a power plant and convert that energy into whatever form we need."
No, "we" cannot, and neither can you.
Of course we can Ghung. I do every time I eat a big bowl of beans.
But the pipeline tap is a little uncomfortable to be honest.
So even if we feed you more beans, you're saying it is unlikely that the flow will increase due to a limitation in size of the pipe? I hope the BOP hydraulics have been well maintained ;-)
Try a good, tight pair of hip waders, Rock. Bulk storage!
Nuclear power is still economical at even a hundred times current fuel costs because fuel is such a small part of a power plant's budget.
Fuel is the least of a plants worries.
You have cost overruns in the building of the plants, an inability for them to get water to run them, even sleeping guards who's job it is to secure the plant, et la
Oh and:
They are a target in warfare - and I see no progress on Man not being interested in war.
We can make the energy.
*WE* don't make energy. Humans harvest it, convert it. E=mc2 - man doesn't make matter.
Those "problems" are common to any industrial process and can be solved. They've been solved many times over.
So are oil refineries. What's your point? Are we not allowed to build anything that someone else might knock over?
Your objections to nuclear power aside, you can't deny that the technology is feasible. And frankly, your objections don't matter. Given a choice between building more nuclear power plants and turning off the lights, any sane person will choose the former.
I can't fathom why so many people around here seem to want civilization to fall.
That's only true in the most pedantic of senses, and you know it. When I say "make", I mean "put into a form useful for performing work". You know this is my intended meaning. Do you have a substantive criticism of my point?
And frankly, your objections don't matter. ... Do you have a substantive criticism of my point?
The same can be said of you Sir.
Man has tried to deliver on the promise of Fission power and has failed to meet the promise. Your attempt at rebuttal is another example of that failure.
Are you claiming that fission power doesn't work? Seriously? Have you heard of countries called "France" and "Japan"?
It may not be to your liking, but you can't deny that we have the technological ability to convert uranium into electricity with great efficiency.
Go ahead, dig yourself deeper.
You go so far as to quote me correctly then rather than address that you come up with your own question.
Are you claiming that fission power doesn't work?
Not as claimed would happen with the 1950's "Peaceful Atom" plan.
And it doesn't seem to "work" for Iran or North Korea in the sense that Iran ordered fission plants in the 1970's and STILL do not have them working.
And its so rare to see pro-fission power people advocate for Iran and North Korea to "enjoy" the same "civilization" you claim will be "saved" via fission.
Thus: Do you advocate Iran, North Korea, Zimbabawae, The Congo all getting fission plants...as many as they want for electrical generation via steam?
Fallacious. Are automobiles a failure because 1950s flying car predictions didn't come to pass? Is wind power useless because it isn't meeting 100% of our needs as some predicted?
Fallacious. Those countries are under strong embargoes, and furthermore, never invested in nuclear energy in good faith. They were more interested in weapons.
That many other nations acting in good faith achieved nuclear power renders this point of yours rather weak.
Fallacious. You're trying to goad me into having to either disavow nuclear power or support terrorists. If those countries abide by the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, sure, they can have reactors. But they haven't, so the discussion is moot.
Fallacious. Fallacious.Fallacious.
Noted that you can't debate the correctness and go with the hand wave. Got it.
If those countries abide by the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, sure, they can have reactors.
Really?
Hrmmmm. Ok. How about in violation of the Symington Amendment? You are in favor of following US law WRT fission power, right?
Truly, you're a master of psychological projection.
I'm talking about general principles. Countries that use nuclear power responsibly and agree to international monitoring should be allowed to have reactors. Countries that do not, and that do not have a track record of being good world citizens, should not.
Principle should dictate law, not vica versa. If your arcane amendment prohibits what I propose, it's the amendment that needs to be changed.
couldn't resist:
So, by this rationality since a somewhat large (and growing) group in the world feel that the US is not a good world citizen, they should no longer have nuclear power? And who is going to take it away from the US?
Who determines this standard of "good world citizen"? The boy with the largest stick? the most popular kid on the block? the one who holds most of the others lunch money hostage? I see a slippery slope argument rolling down the back of that point.....
Don't take my jumping in as being anti-nuclear, as I am not, yet if you are going to get into a debate, especially a polarizing one such as this, your arguments must be solid and not containing weak and non-sourced/poorly sourced information or blatent opinions. I love the good debate, yet lets keep it strong and not just opinionated.
couldn't resist:
Don't resist...these questions should be asked.
We should also consider - If much of how Man has gotten to where we are today by capturing energy flows and taking concentrations of minerals - only to dissapate them to the large body of universal solvent - the sea, should we consider the only sustainable model being one where we reverse the process via energy capture derived from photonic sources?
The photon is the base unit of energy input into this mostly closed system. Shouldn't out future model for a path be based on what has already been done?
I'm guessing he may have been referring to this
Will Obama Break the Law for Israel's Sake?
Actually there is quite a list of 'we won't do X with you because of security concerns' that end up being violated because someone wanted to make a buck or get something else.
Non-nuclear you have the machine tools/toshiba/russia/submarine web of claims. You also have the china/missile/computer web of claims.
On the nuclear side there is what you stated along with india/pakastan and depending on who ya listen to north korea/south aferica/libia web of claims.
In the end - if the idea is to "save civilization" as the less than 1 day old poster has said - the impulse power of fission/fusion energy is too great and Man's will is too weak to be entrusted to it and at some point it won't "save civilization" - it'll be used to burn it to the ground. The "peaceful atom" idea of the 1950's was tried and failed - time to move on.
(And thank you moderators for allowing this discussion to wander this far)
Countries that use nuclear power responsibly and agree to international monitoring should be allowed to have reactors.
Taking the biggest 'responsibility demonstration' Chernobyl - So your plan is to tell the Russians they can't have power?
How about Israel? Under your 'considered plan' they would have to stop.
And how about the US of A - the only nation to use nuclear weapons VS another nation....I'm betting a few people in Japan didn't find that use 'responsible'.
And thus the debate comes to an end. Why?
The lesson on the resource question becomes one of politics and Man's failure and not one of 'science' or 'physics'.
Man's actions has shown that complex systems like a fission plant will fail due to man being a flawed creature. Shortcuts/graft during construction, building plants on fault lines, shutting off safety devices, when there is a failure the event is covered up because no one wants to step forward and admit guilt, and even sleeping security guards.
Man's war-like flaws create a situation where the fission plants themselves become targets or where other nation-states will claim they deny access via sanctions to all nation-states that do not meet X - yet some nation-states are still allowed the sanctioned items, thus creating yet another friction point to hone the weapons of war.
Adopting equipment that capture energy flows that EVERYONE can use will address the friction point of 'you are allowed/you are not allowed' access to making steam via fission. Having energy systems that have low energy density or portability make it hard to create a weapon or claim that your plan is a weapon.
When you can show that Man can create and operate machines without greed and failure - then fission will be safe for the biosphere to make. When Man no longer wishes to use tools like fission reactors to hurt other men, they will be safe to use. But so long as there is no plans to rid the planet of the 4% sociopaths - some men will want to harm.
Hi Eric,
I am not going to take up Quote man's cause, but if you are well informed and honest about it, you must admit that a very large part of the so called failure of nuclear electricity generation is due to some peculair circumstances.First of all, the reactors running now were mostly designed under the thumb of the atom bomb industry to run on weapons waste, Second, the early installations in any heavy industry suffer from a lack of standardization, each plant being built almost from scratch in many respects, with frequent mid job change orders.Hand made cars that are a lot less dependable than the average nuke cost ten or twenty times as much as a dependable factory made car built to a standardized design.Of course nukes will never be mass produced like cars, but the reader should get the idea.
Readers such as yours truly who are old enough to really know anything about the cars of the sixties and seventies will also appreciate the fact that our current generation of nukes are essentially obsolete in terms of a lot of technology-just like the cars of that era.
Many nuclear plants fifty years old are running strong and generating cheap and dependable baseload power-perhaps the "failure " of the industry is mostly pr crap generated by people who are more than willing to bend the truth a little to make thier points.
The waste problem is very like the capital punishment problem-after the opponents succeed in making it ten times as hard and difficult as it needs to be, they employ a circular argument that the great expense proves the difficulty.
I recognize that there are many shortcomings involved with nuclear power, but misrepresenting the facts, either intentionally (or not-as I am sure is the case with you) does not move us towards solutions to our problems.
My well educated guess is that a large build out of a new generation of nukes is a necessary and in the end cheap part of any viable long term survival strategy.It seems as if most of the govts in the world, except in countries where the greens are temporarily on top of the political heap, are willing to bet on nukes.Even such arch liberal enviros as populate upper reaches the OBama administration where the decisions are made apparently recognize the truth of this argument.
If you think nukes are expensive now, just wait to see where thev price of oil, coal, and natural gas are headed over the next few decades.And before everybody jumps me about wind and solar, let me say I advocate a fast and intensive build out of those industries too.
We must do what is not only TECHNICALLY possible, but also POLITICALLY possible.
I do not believe it is politically posssible to wean people off of energy fast enough for renewables to shoulder the load.Once the rationing starts, and the rolling blackouts become a reality, virtually all of the financially comfortable liberal environmentalists of MY acquaintance will rationalize new coal plants out the ying yang pdq.[ I might as well label all environmentalists as liberals in this forum, since it is accepted as holy writ here that all conservatives are ignorant neanderthal types intent on destroying the world as fast as possible thru ignorance and greed.;-) ]
So who who who is going to stand in the way of new coal plants when the chips are down and there is not enough time to build some new nukes?
Of course some of the real old hands here with real credentials have laid it on the line anyway-SOMEBODY is going to burn that coal ANYHOW. Perhaps the anti nuclear types among us should face up to political reality-coal or nuke, take your choice.
If we build out the nukes maybe we can bomb China and India back to the stone age and keep the temperature down to Florida levels in Maine.
I am joking of course-I think I am, anyway.But maybe I'm only seeing the future.
you must admit that a very large part of the so called failure of nuclear electricity generation is due to some peculair circumstances.
Years of kicking this can about I've try to reduce it to 2 issues that make fission power just too dangerous. 1st is the warlike nature of man. A fission plant is a fine asymetric target. The 2nd is Man's willingness to cut corners for the sake of a buck. The latest coal mine collape is an example.
And no one has had a working technical solution to the 2 issues.
My well educated guess is that a large build out of a new generation of nukes
But what generation and what model? The big multi-gigawatt? Or the small 40 foot long container truck 100kW style?
Mass production of the 100kW version with the "promised" 20 years no-muss-no-fuss runtime would be an industralist dream. You could place and scale your power where you "need" it. You could even make 'em mobile and go from place to place rape'n and pillaging^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hprocessing natural resources.
In the multi-gigawatt version you may be better able to defend VS attackers, but if they succeed you can lay waste to a larger area than with the 100kW unit. The 100kW style would be less of a clean up mess (in theory) but with them mass produced and all over - many more targets and more of a chance of stupidity.
most of the govts in the world, except in countries where the greens are temporarily on top of the political heap, are willing to bet on nukes.
And I'd be willing to bet part of that is because the X gigawatt plants offer a large control surface. Control the electrial power - control the "people".
Then you have the issue stated upthread - why do you get 'em while we don't.
I do not believe it is politically posssible to wean people off of energy fast enough for renewables to shoulder the load.
Energy used = people X per capita use.
The total energy used is easy to downgrade in the above situation.....
As for weaning - if the energy isn't there - its not there. You are weaned.
As to the energy not being there, we won't be weaned-we will go to war, just like every major country in history has if survival is the name of the game. then the nukles will fly for sure.
I have worked in nukes, and I am satisfied that they are as safe against terrorism as any taget can be inthe real world-it would take some truly heavy duty military hardware to bust open a containment, and if the bad bays can do that , they can take out far easier targets, such as the water and sewer of a major city, or a big coal plant.
i do believe your arguments are based on utopian thinking. If you have a wife and kids, she is apt to leave you and take the kids with her when and if the power goes off and she comes to the conclusion the power would have stayed on if nukes or coal plants had been built.just kidding.
There is no ultimate safety.
I feel for the dead miners and thier families-I have the names of dead relatives in our family Bibles who died of black lung and mine disasters. We live in the edge of coal country.
They made thier bets, and earned about three times as much money in the mines as they could otherwise and still live in thier beloved mountians on thier beloved hardscrabble little farms.
The miners who died yesterday made the same bet;they chose to stay in the profession, and every year about twenty five to fifty of them out of fifty thousand plus lose the bet.
I have spent most of my life working in places I might get killed, and have come close a few times-my Dad and I just talked it over and between us we USED TO PERSONALLY KNOW over a dozen dead truck drivers, farmers, loggers, welders, electricians, and so forth.Of course these deaths were scattered over several decades.The annual death toll among coal miners is high enough as it is;wi.thout nukes it would be higher
Life isn't even totally safe in an office.
I knew two people who were beaten to death in a used car sales office-probably by a truly irate customer.
It is my opinion, and I recognize that it is only an opinion, that the net danger from having nukes is less than the net danger of not having them.
But then I spend a lot of evenings reading history books about wars and the causes there of.There will be a number of wars in the near future, in addition to the ones going on now , over energy and access to it.
A country with a fleet of nukes will have a lot less incentive to go aviking.
This is surely the best line I've heard all morning- thanks! If you need me, I'll be out back building more nuclear power plants so I can read TOD tonight.
Okay. Or you can oppose nuclear power so vehemently that utilities give up and build more dirty coal plants. Your call.
Gee, no false choice fallacy there.
hey we should go easy on the newbie
quotemstr
History
Member for
5 hours 7 min
Its hard to be a shill for fission and believe that $'s are a perfect way to track a resource.
What is orbital solar?
Space-based solar power, a speculative but feasible approach of collecting solar power in orbit and beaming it down to earth. Since there's no atmosphere in space, this process can be much more efficient than conventional solar power generation.
How's the US going to do that when they can't even maintain the shuttle program?
Sorry, this is squarely in the realm of Star Trek. If we can't even get the basics to work down on Earth not much chance to do this in space.
There are some commercial launchers that should be coming online in the next few years and could launch solar panels into orbit. However, there is no way that enough solar panels could be launched to begin making this type of technology economically or practically feasible. I'd recommend reading the discussion of this at this forum - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16687.0
There are many NASA, contractor, and other governmental space agency people who post and they are extremely knowledgeable about the realities of this. I think the general conclusion there can be summed up with this comment "I find the probability that this gets built to be somewhere on the low end of infinitesimal."
Don't you understand the difference between can't and won't?
No, it's based on reasonable extensions of current technology based on current science. It's no more "Star Trek" than landing on the moon was. Your personal lack of vision is not an indictment of the project's feasibility.
That said, nuclear power is more practical --- but hey, if you oppose that for hysterical reasons, we've got to do something.
My God you are an opinionated so-and-so aren't you!
How the heck can you even begin to talk about my "personal lack of vision" !!!! You haven't a clue to whom you talk.
And how, in the very brief time you have been posting here, can you have deduced that I am anti nuclear!!
It is very easy to spot a troll on sites like this. They tend to get personal very quickly as their lack of knowledge in the subject matter at hand shows through.
Good bye, Troll.
If you can't imagine the development and application of current science and technology to achieve a goal, then yes, that's a lack of vision.
I can certainly understand the desire to be surrounded by people whose viewpoint you share. I suppose it's very rude to note when that viewpoint has little to do with reality.
Quotemstr -
Please tell me:
1) Your real name
2) Roughly where you live
3) Your job
4) Your experience in areas relevant to these discussions.
Until you do, you are a troll. Just typing out anything to gain a reaction. You have not actually added any real technical detail to the discussion. Others on this site either go by their real names or are not bothered about people knowing more about them. Also, many here have provided real educational posts and have contributed to the debate in a fact-based way. Once again, you are not providing any facts, just refuting posts. It is easy to be the one who can shout loudest but it gets boring when you offer nothing of substance.
So here is a test for you, concerning the Orbital Solar project. Please have a go at working out the following:
a) How much will it cost to design, build, launch and operate a single unit capable of producing 1 GWe when returned to Earth and run through an earth-based generator. Now obviously I am not asking for a detailed budget, but you should be able to use comparators such as the Hubble telescope and the Apollo missions. Then extrapolate this to scale up to provide North America with 10% of its total energy requirements. Please also factor in maintenance.
b) Describe the ERoEI of such a unit.
c) Describe the process by which the 'power' is returned to Earth. Is it by ultra light weight cable or beamed down? If the latter, how is it beamed? Is it to be a Laser beam or a focusing of the sun's rays onto a tiny point on the Earth. What safe guards will the system require?
These should be enough to get you started in the age-old tradition of proper discussion, with facts and figures and educated guesses. Sometimes these facts and figures are later found to be false and in need of revision; so be it, but if you are to be taken seriously it is not enough to just say that we need 'vision' to build orbital solar units and then shout down anyone who, having done their research, believes it to be purely fantasy.
Right, off you go! You want to be taken seriously, roll-up your sleeves, tell us a bit about yourself and get stuck into real debate.
Oh by the way:
1) Hugh Acland
2) South coast, England, UK
3) Computer science
4) As far as energy technology goes, almost nothing whatsoever.
;)
How much energy does it take to get these things into space. Is this energy worth the rather small advantage of not having some air for the solar rays to pass through?
Having a thought does not guarantee that it makes any any sense in the real, physical world.
William Catton (Overshoot) did an analysis about how much energy was used to get Apollo missions into space, as I recall it work out that it was on the scale of building the pyramids. I can't remember the exact numbers but what he seemed to be pointing to was the huge amount of FF energy used to create RE and alternative energy solutions using future solutions.
Space is always a solution! Future, untapped, abundant source which has massive potential to scale up. Saul Griffiths did a really good presentation on scaling up RE/alternative at LongNow where he worked out the numbers. After reading it, I'd be worried.
Will it be done? Yep.
Can it be done? Yep.
Does it scale up and create substitute energies for current energy infrastructure? Doesn't appear to.
Space, the final fronteria of denial that civilization may have a problem.
I find that "space-based power" belief is a good litmus test for a blindly reductionist mindset, since to take it seriously one must not only be ignorant of systems thinking but even of basic principles of stepwise aggregate probability.
I generally accept "the watchtower" and wish the JW's a good day rather than debating how many people get to go to heaven and why. Same basic principle here.
There's nothing wrong with reductionism, and I'm sick of people using it as a pejorative. It's the only approach that lets us understand how the world works. It's the only way science has made progress.
"Holism" and "systems thinking" are often trotted out as an excuse for doing nothing, or as a duplicitous way of creating false equivalencies in an argument. My favorite example is the claim made by some people that nuclear plants have a significant carbon footprint because of the concrete used to construct their walls. If you try to point out that the contribution from the concrete curing is minuscule, you're called a "reductionist."
As for aggregate probability of space-based power, well look: I said it's speculative, and that nuclear is a more practical choice. As another commentator here mentioned, it's not _completely_ impractical if we can get launch costs down.
Mercy, they're still at the door. Honey, go fetch the hose.
With 36 (fairly long) posts out of 198 from quotemonster at this point, I suppose there's no need for me to try keeping these comments succinct and on track.
You certainly seem to have a lot of time to kill, and the energy and zeal of a missionary bound and determined to bring the good news to the savages. I reckon you mean well, but you seem to be out of your depth.
Of course there's nothing wrong with reductionism, it's a useful perspective to discern some kinds of regularities about the world. What's silly is blind reductionism, which is what I tagged "space power" believers with, and which you pretty much demonstrate "ad absurdum" with your next two sentences.
Y'know, you're basically raving at this point. What you're saying has nothing to do with anything I said. If you had been around long enough to read some of the commenters you're talking down to, you might be a tad more humble. Some smart folks hang out here.
You may not be a bad sort; like any missionary you seem to care about reaching the poor ignoramuses you're yelling at, and it's nice to see a person care about his or her fellow man. I suggest reading the excellent "beginner" links on the TOD home page and familiarizing yourself with some of the concepts.
best
Many years ago, Robert Heinlein wrote a story about that, involving the consequences of that beam of power missing its target on earth, and microwaving folks around the earth.
Assuming that there could be no intentional or accidental misdirection of the power beam, you are still left with a rather high powered beam, invisible to the eye, through which birds, and perhaps errant aircraft might fly.
Another SF story, also in near earth orbit, and by the same author, was "Blowups Happen." That one involves fusion power.
Good luck with endless supplies of finite resources.
Craig
Nuclear can work, but I can't get excited about it. Unit sizes are too big, development cycles too long. Plus, of course, weapons proliferation problems. Orbital solar would probably work, but as you note, it's pretty speculative - I don't think you'll convince anyone with it.
I suggest you promote wind power instead.
Another issue I have with the prevalent groupthink on this site is the notion that "big" is automatically good, and that "local" and "small" are always positive attributes. There's no rational basis for assuming that's the base. Big units have great economies of scale; small is inefficient.
Another issue I have with the prevalent groupthink on this site
I often criticize that, which makes it amusing that you assume that's what I'm doing. In fact, I'm not. It's just a fact that nuclear plants take a very long time to build, and that's related to their size. It's true that size produces greater efficiency, but that's far from the only thing that's important.
You'll communicate better if you don't make ad hominem assumptions or arguments, and if you don't get distracted by irrelevancies (hmmm - perhaps I'll have be more careful before I do that, too....).
Engineering Physicist, you have made an excellent critic of this paper.
An abundant clean and cheap energy source is the one most critical shortage confronting our world’s population. With abundant cheap energy the mineral shortages can be overcome by: a) mining lower grade ores, b) recycling minerals, (unlike fossil fuels minerals are not used up) and c) substituting other materials. The predicted shortages outlined in this paper point to the very strong need for the development of an inexpensive breeder reactor technology.
The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) and the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) are the two most promising generation IV reactor designs. The IFR breeds with fast neutrons that require a large amount of fuel as fast neutrons causes fewer fissions than thermal neutron when passing through fuel. The LFTR breeds uranium 232 from thorium with thermal neutrons. ORNL operated two prototypes to the LFTR reactor in the 1950s and 1960s. Both the IFR and the LFTR operate at near ambient pressure. This reduces the high cost of the reactor vessel and the expensive dome. Both operate at high temperature and can be cooled without the need for water. The smaller fuel load and a liquid fuel which does not need to be made into fuel rods would seem to argue for the LFTR being in position to produce the lowest cost clean energy.
High temperature operation makes possible splitting hydrogen from water at high efficiency. Nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia) can be made without the need for natural gas. Phosphate and potash (potassium) are listed as in short supply. Potassium is 1% of the earth’s mantle while phosphate is present at 0.1%. The relative abundance of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium would, with cheap clean energy, make the fertility needs of modern agriculture affordable into the foreseeable future through recycling and mining of lower grade ores. Nitrogen available to plants need never be in short supply as it is made from atmospheric nitrogen (78% of our atmosphere) and with cheap nuclear energy, hydrogen from water. There is no shortage of sea water.
What is needed to avert the devastating costs of peak oil, climate change, and mineral shortages, is an aggressive federal government education program aimed at training scientist and engineers and an investment in an aggressive research and development of a breeder reactor program.
A chemically stable fluid fueled, thermal spectrum breeder / burner (e.g. LFTR) that operates at atmospheric pressure and is intrinsically self-regulating has so many advantages in terms of scalability, safety and potential for cost reduction. Why we aren't pushing this ALREADY DEMONSTRATED, PROVEN technology to commercial prototypes on an emergency basis is beyond me. I agree with John T: a sustainable, practical nuclear heat source could render most other natural resource limitations much less problematic as we could afford to run more elaborate recycling schemes, utilize lower grade ores, develop effective substitution strategies, drive synthetic manufacturing options.
It all hinges on a cheap, sustainable, massively scalable high-grade heat source that only next gen nuclear can provide. Without it, I see only doom in the decades ahead. Perhaps therein lies the philosophical underpinnings of the rabid anti-nuke orthodoxy: they understand that only a next gen nuclear paradigm will allow Western, industrial, capitalist, democratic civilization to survive this century. It is a system they would rather see fail under peak energy, so NO NUKES.
"Why we aren't pushing this ALREADY DEMONSTRATED, PROVEN technology to commercial prototypes..."
Good question. Presumably "the market" has looked at it and decided it is not worth doing. Isn't the market always perfect in its judgments?
I would guess "the market" has looked at it and decided there are too many religious anti's willing to fight it to the death, in courts and out.
There are plenty of people opposed to the use of fossil fuels, oil companies and producer nations, that hasnt stopped them. Nuclear wasnt developed because it wasnt the step up from oil that was expected. With peak oil on the door step though its starting to look like an attractive option.
It is almost certain that nuclear power will become more important, and will serve as a major component overall. The problem is that, notwithstanding all of the posted BS about how at present rates it will last a hundred years, the rates will not be the same and it will not last long enough. Coal is touted as being sufficient for 100 or 200 years [depending on sources], at present rates. Ignored, again, is that as oil runs out, use will have to increase if we rely on coal or nukes.
Also ignored is the need for oil power to build and deploy the plants that are supposed to save us all.
Finally, ignored, is the impact of population on all of these variables.
On a finite planet, only a given number of any species can exist for an extended period of time. For a short time, any species can overshoot. We have done that, and our generation and the next several generations are in the uncomfortable position of suffering the consequences as our numbers are reduced, voluntarily or not. At the end of the drawdown, there will be a stable and sustainable population of h. sapiens, whatever number that is. Part of the determination of that number will be how much of our knowledge is preserved, how violent we become during that drawdown period, and how extreme the climate change we have engendered becomes.
Craig
Craig,
The breeder reactor will not run out of fuel for a very long period of time even with huge increases in demand for nuclear power. A one GW breeder reactor year of power will supply the electricity needs of San Francisco for one year. The total fuel consumption is one ton of uranium. The amount of uranium and thorium in our earth's crust is essentially inexhaustible. Even with an increase in nuclear power consumption equal to the total energy used for all purposes by humans, it is reported that the extraction of uranium from the ocean would not equal the annual amount of uranium that leaches into ocean from rocks.
Our best shot at ZPG is to foster industrialization of the developing world. It is well known that negative population growth rates follow industrialization. In the meanwhile the lowering of the planets carrying capacity by climate change is a major fear. The only way to avoid the tipping point is to find a clean energy source that is cheaper than coal. The only energy source currently available with adequate capacity is advanced generation nuclear fission. We need another Apollo type mission to develop cheap advanced generation nuclear power. All life-everything is sustained with energy. Just an interesting fact to end on. The amount of uranium converted to energy in one GW year is about 2.4 ounces.
Preaching to the choir. I have been trying to get friends to understand all of this, and find that they have some sort of new aged fetish about nuclear energy. They oppose it, no matter how much it has changed, because they have always opposed it.
And, they do not understand that the much of the waste being stored under water on site could be reprocessed and that the new reactors are somewhere near 98% efficient (reuse 98% of waste).
So, yes. It will last a while. Not forever, and without immediate action it will be a bit late to prevent many problems. Unless you see this changing, our future is still cloudy at best.
Craig
I'm a staunch advocate of intelligent use of nuclear power, but do take issue with your above. We have now in hand pretty much all the technology required to implement solar-thermal-with-thermal-energy-storage (3x collector field should yield 83% availability from good solar sites). Water req'ds for condenser cooling can be easily met with either dry cooling towers or seawater piped inland where necessary. Occasional downs met with natural gas burner auxiliary heaters to the thermal circuit and/or turbine combined cycle systems if cost justified.
Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology - Cost and Performance Forecasts - Sargent & Lundy LLC Engineering Group Chicago, Illinois
[QUOTE]For the more technically aggressive low-cost case, S&L found the National Laboratories’ “SunLab” methodology and analysis to be credible. The projections by SunLab, developed in conjunction with industry, are considered by S&L to represent a “best-case analysis” in which the technology is optimized and a high deployment rate is achieved. The two sets of estimates, by SunLab and S&L, provide a band within which the costs can be expected to fall. The figure and table below highlight these results, with initial electricity costs in the range of 10 to 12.6 ¢/kWh and eventually achieving costs in the range of 3.5 to 6.2 ¢/kWh. The specific values will depend on total capacity of various technologies deployed and the extent of R&D program success. In the technically aggressive cases for troughs / towers, the S&L analysis found that cost reductions were due to volume production (26%/28%), plant scale-up (20%/48%), and technological advance (54%/24%).[/QUOTE]
Given Sargent & Lundy Engineering's worst case scenario provides peak time solar electricity at $0.062/kwh by only building 2.8 GW and doing a few minor and definitely achievable R&D improvements, plus transmission, and a clear path is provided to offering 83% capacity factor using cheap sand and gravel tanks for thermal storage with 3x collector area and no additional central plant, which should make the installation no more expensive PER KWH if only the industry can get to 2.8 GW installed, I don;t see what we are waiting for.
It also appears to me that the more agressive forecasts of NREL / SunLab of $0.035 / kwh if we can get to 8.2 GW insalled quite quickly is entirely within reach.
If you can pull it off, great. But large solar thermal installations are still speculative. Show me a proof of concept that demonstrates solar thermal reliably delivering baseload power at the low end of your cost spectrum, and I'll change my tune.
Just one?!
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34186.pdf
So what's your new tune?
When the children decide to clean up the mess they've already made, they can have new toys.
My best guess: government regulation in the form of the NRC makes innovation in the nuclear space next to impossible. My understanding is that the queue to get a new reactor certified, based on existing LWR technology, runs upward to FIVE YEARS. More than that, the NRC must be paid by those being regulated to the tune of $250/hour for every staffer working on an application. A license application can run $50-$100M.
So, take years of paperwork and fork over tens of millions of dollars to the government before you can even THINK about building anything. Then you have years of construction of a megaproject before revenue is generated, with the risk of lawyers or politics scuttling your investment at any point in this process. If the government wanted to make an industry next to impossible to thrive, this is how you'd do it. This is why the "market" hasn't touched it - past government policy has made entrepreneurial innnovation and large-scale commercialization virtually impossible by fiat.
One way around the capital risk is type-certification of small modular reactors, mass produced in a factory setting so you have predictable costs with presumably short timelines in smaller lump sums. But, the NRC doesn't even have the resources to even begin to think beyond LWR technology in the form of huge mega plants. Under BAU, the queue for completely innovative nuclear systems would be 5-10 years... OF PAPERWORK, perhaps never at all if there isn't a major overhaul of the nuclear regulatory framework by Congress.
Nuclear technology is regulated in knots preventing the kind of technical innovation we have been talking about here (LFTR, IFR, etc.). This is an outrage when you consider that humanity is facing perhaps its greatest crisis in the form of energy descent and global climate change thanks to fossil fuel combustion. Whose interests are being served by such a state of affairs?
That's a big reason why I prefer wind power: much smaller units, much faster development cycles.
No doubt that's a benefit, but wind is limited on the larger scales: it still takes a lot more concrete, steel, storage and / or grid infrastructure per MW-year of energy delivered, at least one order of magnitude more than nuclear, so any build-out to make a REAL difference (10s or even 100s of quads worth per year) will be challenged by resource limits and availability of capital. Modular nuclear has promise to change the game in terms of rate of deployment and cost, but only if the political and regulatory environment gets behind it instead of blocking it.
I believe wind construction does take more materials than nuclear, but I think you're overestimating the ratio.
10s or even 100s of quads worth per year
The US only uses 97 quads per year for all consumption, and that would fall by 2/3 if we measured by electrical output, rather than primary energy input.
I'm pretty sure you're overestimating the impact of a large buildout of windpower. I don't have the time to look up the concrete and steel requirements: do you happen to have those stats at hand?
The order of magnitude stat was from memory, but I found a good reference at Brave New Climate:
TCASE 4: Energy system build rates and material inputs
Based on a limit case of adding 680MWe / day over the next 40 years, it is calculated that to do this exclusively with wind you'll need daily 1,250,000 tons of concrete and 335,000 tons of steel. For nuclear, you'll need daily 160,000 tons of concrete and 10,000 tons of steel. One can reduce the cost of labour, development and overhead costs on a per unit basis quite significantly by means of mass production; however, the economies of scale cannot circumvent the raw material costs: if you build 1000 times as much, you'll need 1000 times more raw materials. So, in the limit case of mass production pulling every efficiency possible, nuclear has the *potential* to approach a build cost an order of magnitude cheaper than wind because it requires an order of magnitude less stuff per unit mean capacity delivered. This could be potentially VERY significant in a world of severe resource constraints.
Let's just keep ignoring the waste storage/disposal costs. Keep kicking that can folks!
OK, lets have a look at it. Right now, I believe 1 GW-year of electricity takes about 250 tons of U which become 35 tons of enriched U fuel that is used up and becomes spent fuel in a once-through fuel cycle.
So, what is currently regarded as radioactive waste tallies 35 tons for a GW-year. The spent fuel is mostly U-238 plus some fractions of transuranic actinides plus the stuff holding the fuel rod assemblies together. The density of the spent fuel will be, roughly then of 19 tonnes / cubic metre. So, your GW-year of power produced less than 2 cubic metres of "waste."
Now, for coal. It takes about 4-5 million tons for a GW-year of electricity. At a density of very roughly 1 tonne / cubic metre, this means the amount of stuff to be mined and shipped takes up 4-5 million cubic metres. When burnt it will produce around 12 million tons of CO2 and generate thousands of tons of toxic wastes (acid rain producing SOx, NOx) and particulates dumped right into the atmosphere. It will release mercury into the environment and radionuclides from Uranium, thorium, radium and daughter nuclides (radon, etc.) up the stack and concentrated in ash.
Talking about waste in absolute terms doesn't mean much. If we are to protect the environment we must look at the situation in relative terms: what is the life cycle environmental cost, or footprint, of each alternative to produce 24x7 dispatchable power on demand. Add up the costs for each then draw your conclusions. Right now, for new baseload growth on a large scale in the world, the choice is coal or nuclear. I think the best environmenatl choice, on a relative basis, is clear. Its not even a contest: nuclear wins even with today's horrendously wasteful once-through fuel cycle. Opponents have to resort to lies and spreading fear (e.g. nuclear plants are bombs waiting to go off, spent fuel = bomb materials for terrorists, ANY amount of radiation is too frightening to contemplate, etc.) because the truth of these simple facts are too compelling: nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly way to generate power when you strip away the spin and look at the facts and make rational judgements by comparing against all reasonable alternatives. Now, go to closed fuel cycles and the numbers I quoted would be slashed by roughly 2 orders of magnitude to roughly 1 ton in and 1 ton of waste out per GW-year, with the waste being purely fission products which are mostly with short half lives and many valuable substances. The environmental impact of making power in this way would be close to NIL: No emissions, virtually no requirement for new mined material for centuries. What the F! is the problem with that? Why don't we scream at our politicos to MAKE THIS HAPPEN ASAP rather than run around screaming OMG, OMG, OH NO, OMG...
In the history of civilian nuclear power in the U.S., no one has been killed. Stack that up against the human and environmental costs of coal and you'd have to be blind to not see the superiority of nuclear power. This is why it is advocated by James Hansen, James Lovelock and many other notable climate change scientists. It is the only realistic large-scale alternative to vanquish fossil fuels with the lowest life-cycle environmental impact. The sooner we get on with it the better...
Steve,
Thank you for several informative posts on comparisons of nuclear energy with other form of energy. You have an amazing amount of facts at your command. I have gained insights from you posts. I can appreciate the problem encountered by post Three Mile Island/Chernobyl generation in accepting nuclear power. They grew up with the fear of the ultimate evil and the image of a China Syndrome. It is hard to shake a life-long fear. The best approach is to provide data that is verifiable. Changing attitudes takes time and patience.
Fear of radiation has been greatly over-hyped. I have been retired for a decade from academia. Immunology and Cell Biology were part of my teaching load. As a biologist, I know that that the human organism evolved on a planet with a more radioactive background than our present background level. Our immune systems are endowed with elegant mechanisms, to not only tolerate the range of naturally occurring range of radiation, but to actually benefit from amounts somewhat greater amount than most of us currently receive. Our current LNT theory views any additional radiation as a potential for an increase in our chances of getting cancer. The truth is that the scientific literature is filled with studies that show that a modest increase in radiation decreases our risk of cancer. This benefit is termed radiation hormesis. Our current policy is a well meaning attempt to protect us from cancer. It is unwittingly leaves us with more vulnerability to cancer and a lowered immune response capability.
I have seen data that a one GW LFTR will produce one ton of fission products from one ton of fuel in a year. Something like 83% of that ton decays to stable elements in ten years. Many of the stable element are valuable rare earths. Reprocessing the ton of waste to recover these valuable elements leaves only about 340 pounds of radioactive material that needs geologic storage for about 300 year. The LFTR fission products include valuable medical radioisotopes.
Thanks John. I keep hammering away at it because our civilization needs to change course toward sustainable, low-impact, reliable energy systems and nuclear is the ultimate manifestation of that thanks to its 50,000,000:1 energy density superiority (on atom-to-atom basis). It can do the job but it won't unless big changes are made in our collective understanding of energy issues in general and fission in particular. Changes need to be made politically, especially around excessively burdensome regulation driven in large parts by irrational fear and misunderstanding of the science. Innovation can't happen if systems stand in the way blocking it. I'll bet this isn't an accident either: it is serving a variety of interests by helping to maintain the status quo.
Prof. Barry Brook at Brave New Climate has convinced me that belief in "renewables" to make any *large-scale* transition away from fossil fuels is not only a pipe-dream, but a dangerous delusion. It falsely leads us to believe we're doing something when in fact it can't make the difference we need to reverse the climate-change path we're currently on despite all the awareness of the issues. His research and discussions on his blog are doing the world an invaluable service, IMHO.
Next generation nuclear technologies will be essential for our collective survival looking into the decades ahead, even assuming large-scale changes in our living arrangements and lifestyles. The developing world has no fat to cut and needs MORE energy not less. We need workable answers. That's why I keep beating this drum. I'm a science geek, and engineer and have looked at this stuff for several years and my conclusions only grow more certain the more I study it.
There IS a sustainable path forward with intrinsically safe, scalable, inexpensive nuclear. There ARE options other than collapse. Lets collectively push to get the work done and that starts with public awareness and changing the politics currently standing in the way.
Prof. Barry Brook at Brave New Climate has convinced me that belief in "renewables" to make any *large-scale* transition away from fossil fuels is not only a pipe-dream, but a dangerous delusion.
I looked at his discussion of resource consumption ( http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/ ): he states that 100% wind would require 1.25M tons concrete/yr, but that's only 2% of world production, so I don't see the problem.
What would you say is his strongest argument against wind power?
Wind isn't regular or controlled, it can never be 100%.
It could, but it would be pretty expensive to get it all the way to 100%. OTOH, no one is suggesting that it be 100%. Any one energy source would be very suboptimal if we used it 100% - France, for instance, exports power at night, and imports it during the day.
That's not Brook's best argument, is it?
Based on a limit case of adding 680MWe / day over the next 40 years, it is calculated that to do this exclusively with wind you'll need daily 1,250,000 tons of concrete and 335,000 tons of steel.
This doesn't appear to be a problem. According to the wikipedia article on concrete, world concrete production is about 25 billion tons per year. To provide all the power we'd need with wind (which no one is proposing, btw) would only require 450 million tons, or an increase of only 2%.
To suggest that nuclear power costs can ever be reduced to anything close to the costs of generic concrete and steel is....highly, highly unrealistic.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this study seems to treat demand if it had one value dependent solely on time. That doesn't make sense and disregards the bedrock economic idea that demand must equal supply: when prices increase, demand is destroyed until it is equal to supply; likewise, when prices fall, demand increases until it meets supply.
When Clugston projects that we'll see shortfalls of certain resources, what he must mean is that resources will not be available below a certain price. But he never specifies what threshold he uses as his "shortfall" price. He does define a "fatal" shortfall as one severe enough that a society cannot provide for its population, but it's not clear whether the "shortfall" in his tables corresponds to his "fatal shortfall" definition. Regardless, the "fatal shortfall" concept is too vague to be useful.
In short, I don't think the study really tells us anything. It lacks rigor and specificity in its projections, and I feel like one would have to be predisposed to the peak-everything hypothesis to find the paper satisfying.
Anyone see Uranium or Thorium on the list?
Lack of Phosphate chills the blood, because of this little molecule.
ATP
The author is talking about elemental phosphorous and its mineral compounds, not about the ubiquitous phosphorus spread throughout the earth's ecosystems. There is plenty of the latter. Keep in mind that life has managed to get by for billions of years without any phosphorous mining whatsoever.
My understanding is that without application of phosphate to the farm, world population should settle at about 900 Million.
(About 1 in 6 survival rate)
Ignorance causes us to dump waste phosphorus. (Excuse the pun)
It's not ignorance but economics. It's cheaper to mine phosphorous than it is to derive it from organic feedstock. If inorganic phosphorus sources become scarce enough, the economics will shift back in the other direction.
The old supply and demand curve.
Spoken like a true economist.
I was married to one.
Demand will cause another cupcake to appear on your plate.
(We had kids.)
What are you trying to say? That economics is false? You might well try to argue that Santa Claus and Elvis Presley conspired to destroy the World Trade Center, or that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.
You can't dismiss a rigorous discipline because it doesn't happen to jive with the way you'd like to see the world.
"You can't dismiss a rigorous discipline because it doesn't happen to jive with the way you'd like to see the world."
Economics is a religion, faux science. I don't need to dismiss economics. I already have, along with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
Economics is our best theory for explaining why prices are what they are and why certain goods and produced and not certain others.
Sure, it's imperfect, but so is every scientific theory. Do you have a competing theory that better explains the data?
Common sense.
Okay, show me 1) the data in question, 2) what conventional economics predicts, 3) what "common sense" predicts, and 4) how you derived the prediction in #3.
But let's cut to the chase: you're not going to do that. You're merely engaging in anti-intellectual gainsaying. You don't want to understand: you want to believe.
"You don't want to understand: you want to believe."
Actually quite the opposite. I know that if a commodity is in high demand and short supply, the price will go up. I know that if the price gets too high, substitution will occur if possible. These are what I refer to as common sense. If you add speculation, fear, market controls and limits, demand overshoot, disinformation, and perhaps most of all, desire and greed, any attempt to predict an outcome will be prophecy rather than science. This is what I call modern economics. As systems become hyper-complex (as ours has), with too many variables to account for, "economics" becomes religion. Too many assumptions are required. We have a better chance of predicting climate change. Economics is an attempt to quanitify human behavior. I know better than to try. Good luck (and watch out for the inevitable Black Swans).
This is fun, but I have to go. Planting time!
With apologies to Clausewitz,
"Economics is the continuation of Ideology by other means"
Hereby copywrited by Flakmeister
Actually Herman Daly, formerly a senior economist at World Bank, put it, "Economics is an ideology parading as a discipline."
To be fair, some economist, such as Daly and his followers, are starting to create models that acknowledge basic realities such as resource and ecological limits. But most seem still to be hopelessly lost in a neo-classical dreamworld.
"Sure, it's imperfect, but so is every scientific theory. Do you have a competing theory that better explains the data?"
I don't think that is the point. The point being that economics as a discipline is uniquely influenced by the political and psychological predispositions of its practitioners. More so because mainstream economists tend to deny this fact, which only makes it more entrenched, if unconscious.
Economics is really Political Economy and it is not a rigorous science in the sense that physics or geology can be said to be rigorous sciences.
I'm not talking about subtle implications of Keynesism here. Yes, there's disagreement on the margins of the field of economics, and much of that is politically motivated. I'm not talking about those margins.
I'm talking about fundamental economic principles of supply and demand. The OP claimed that our phosphate sourcing was based on "ignorance". I countered and said it was based in economics: we use the least expensive means to produce a given quantity of goods.
That's not disputed by any economist or thinking person. Denying that would be like a physicist rejecting the atomic theory of matter, or a biologist promoting the four humors.
I do hear that. However, statements that imply there is no such thing as geological limits to any resource, that it will appear if its price is high enough, seem to exemplify a way of looking at the world that is naive at best. It exemplifies everything that has brought us to a situation where there may in fact be a collapse because saying that we can get all our energy from uranium — hey presto! — seems to ignore a great deal of solidly real conditions. Saying it does not make it so, you can even "prove" it from a theoretical economic standpoint and that does not mean we will avoid a collapse, as much as most would want to avoid it.
Economics as practiced in the industrial age, hand in hand with politics and industrial policy, has made itself the handmaid of the industrial exploitation of the planet, steadfastly ignoring the idea that there are limits to the exploitation in an absolute, geological sense. Whenever I see the phrase, "...all we have to do is..." I know we are not talking about reality but about an industrial fantasy. Yes, given unlimited time and finance, we might be able to do whatever we desire, but we do not have unlimited time or finance, and many industrial-fantasies-turned-reality have had serious complicating consequences, particularly when done headlong.
I believe that we frittered away the time we had to do reasoned well thought out and planned mitigation for our problem and that we now find ourselves in a predicament brought about at least in part by the willful rejection by the economic/political establishment of the notion of limits.
First of all, economics is descriptive. If says that if you are in situation X, Y will happen. It doesn't presume to make value judgments. You're unfairly conflating the discipline of economics with the dogma of free market fundamentalism. Economics is a tool. If you specify a desired outcome, economics will give you a pretty good idea about how to get there.
Disliking economics because you don't like how we've exploited our natural wealth is like disliking physics because it told us how to build nuclear weapons.
As far as resources in particular go, the relationship between price and abundance is pretty well established. Increasing the price level makes more exploration of more marginal deposits feasible. Of course you run out eventually, but with the possible exception of liquid petroleum, we're nowhere near that point.
I don't dislike economics, any more than I dislike physics. I am fascinated by economics and I am also interested in political philosophy and psychology. I understand that certain economic theories are descriptions of certain behaviors, but I also believe that modern economics has been created under certain historical and psychological conditions and that when those conditions change some of those theories will no longer be good descriptions because to much of the reality being described has been left out of the equations.
Being able to hang out and engage in such conversations is one of the reasons I work for myself, but like Ghung I have to get out and maintain my own economic position.
Ghung what are you planting now?
Today I hope to get pole beans and tomatos in but life may throw me a curve. I still haven't gotten all of my peas in but I planted them a little late last year and they did well. The weather has been so crazy here the last couple of years that it's hard to know, so I'm going to stagger some plantings. Corn soon. Asparagus comming up!
I pulled some ramps yesterday. Local delicacy!
"Increasing the price level makes more exploration of more marginal deposits feasible."
Only if people/societies are willing and able to pay for it. This is the point we seem to be reaching on many commodities. Many have no substitutes.
Some here have a theory that (by definition) demand can never exceed supply. I don't agree. If you have 6.8 billion humans and only enough food (and the resources to produce enough food) for 5 billion, the hungry don't stop "demanding" food until they starve. They will try to take what they need by force.
Whether a substance is in short supply due to physical limits or economic limits won't mean much if our economies are reliant on them for growth. Like the hungry people, the economies will starve. This results in a decline, and eventually a "new normal" that (IMHO) can't be predicted. Humans have a rather violent way of working through these things. You seem to trust your species more than I do.
If the price of commodity is high, then somebody must be willing to pay for it. Nobody will mine ore than put it in a warehouse because nobody will buy it at some arbitrary price. Price decreases until buyers can be found for all the supply. If that price ends up being below the cost of production, production decreases until price rises high enough to cover the cost. This increase in price will destroy some demand. The two will match.
Please stop throwing around terms you don't understand. A definition is a definition, not a theory. The two are mutually exclusive.
By definition, demand is the amount of a good that will be purchased at a particular price. It's not a measure of popular desire. It's not the result of an online opinion poll. It's a particular term with a precise definition. If you refuse to accept that certain words mean certain things, we can't really have a conversation.
Now, yes, once prices rise above some point, people will starve or lack of supply. That would be a terrible outcome, but people around here seem to take it as a given that we're almost at that point. I don't see any evidence of that.
We let plenty of fertile land sit fallow. Food is very inexpensive. What little starvation exists in the world is due to political corruption, not supply problems. All these factors point to our ability to drastically increase food production if it came to that. If we were really on the cusp of starvation, we wouldn't have an obesity problem.
So by your definition, there can be no such thing as unfilled demand?
Must you bandy semantics when it favors you, while failing to address the obvious intent?
A given consumer has WANTS, that to them are "demands". The industrial age and the economics it supports have allowed many "wants" to become reasonably met "demands".
The empirical data provided here tells us everything -- economics worked throughout the 20th century to greatly reduce the real price of resources, thus greatly expanding the supply and providing for wants and needs of untold millions.
Now, we're reaching an inflection point where increasing difficulty in extraction is raising the marginal cost of production and thus results in higher prices and associated demand destruction. The "wants" didn't go away though; at best many will continue to grow along with the population.
As energy cost increases, extraction costs will rise again, with a second-order compound result. For those who cannot pay the higher costs, there will be nothing. For those who can, there will be shifting of expenses, resulting in decreased spending elsewhere. The net result will be less production overall, which when divided by an increasing population will mean per-capita reductions in the standard of living.
The success of economics to induce growth along with the failure of economics to imbue value is like the difference between intellect and wisdom, and between tactics and strategy. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
The obesity problem comes from a calorie problem. You see, nutritious foods are expensive. Folks are looking for calories. Cheap food is loaded with the wrong kinds of calories, thoes from fats and sugars.
Without going into a tirade about the evils of unrestricted capitalism, perhaps you should read "The End of Overeathing" by David A. Kessler, MD.
Letting land sit fallow is a tactic for enriching the soil. Overporoduction harms the land. Today we pump commercial fertilizer onto our land, and gin out huge quantities of grain and other products. And, we are destroying the land. Consider that those fertilizers are a product of fossil fuel, and think about what is going to happen when the supplies decline. On TOD we discuss methods of farming that may produce similar results, but without the insult to the soil, using organic and sustainable techniques.
Also consider how your factory farms will be run without diesel fuel. Electric tractors? Hardly!
Also consider the ecological, environmental and energy cost of production of high-tech batteries and other power storage devices. On TOD we have frequent discussions on these topics, as well as many others.
And, we recognize that demand does not create supply in a closed, finite system. And, that the easy fruit is that first picked, so that later exploitation is more expensive and less efficient.
I appreciate that you feel strongly about the message we serve up here on The Oil Drum. Many, in fact most, people refuse to so much as listen. You need to hear what we have to say, and perhaps you might understand why some of us would be less than sanguine about the future. That does not mean that we want to give up; we want to help to chart a path that will allow maximum survival, minimum suffering, and hope for the future.
So, please, continue to visit TOD. Try listening more... you might learn something. I know I did.
Craig
"Sure, it's imperfect, but so is every scientific theory. Do you have a competing theory that better explains the data?"
Yes, a few people do.
OMG! You have got to be kidding!!!
You must be from the Chicago School.
Or Austrian?
Economics is NOT a science. It is all guesswork, mostly using formulae derived from unrelated fields that sound good, and applied using fancy statistical mathematics to make the politicians think it is important.
The only way that economics can line up with reality is in restrospect.
Like the Oracle of Delphi, economists speak vague generalities, and misinterpret events to 'prove' their worth. It is junk science.
If it was anything else, Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke would have been fired.
And that goes for Samuelson, Krugman, Myerson, Stiglitz... the whole bunch! Pompous frauds.
Craig
I subscribe to neither the Austrian nor the Chicago schools. Those are the crazies who reject empiricism (the Austrians to a greater degree).
Nevertheless, your comment is profoundly anti-intellectual, and it's an insult to every person who's actually tried to study, in good faith, how human societies allocate their resources. Your head is firmly in the sand on this one.
So the Austrian school / Chicago school is now considered discredited, even among economists? Someone should have informed Mr. Regan, Mr. H.W. Bush, Ms. Thatcher, Mr. Blair, Mr. Cheney, etc. etc. etc. We could have avoided a huge amount of pain and waste.
Yes. "By Jove I think he has got it"
Just hang in there, you will become one of us.
Sometimes it takes a long time.
Anyone have any good sense/data on who's included in the 1.2 billion 'industrialized' population? (Note 5) Specifically, I'm wondering what portion of China, for example, might be considered to now be living an industrial existence. Seems like in addition to the clearly included OECD populations, a considerably larger portion of our nearly 7B are now 'reliant' on the industrial machine, no?
Quotemstr has given us the opportunity to see into the mindset of those with a deeply entrenched belief in the current economic paradigm.
His/her perspective is clearly in the majority from my experience.
"The only limits are those in our own minds".
Good luck trying to initiate positive change with that kind of thinking.
Positive change? How about greater social equity, decreased reliance on fossil fuels (for reasons of climate and geopolitics), and more sustainable agriculture? There are all goals worth working toward.
But we can do all that with existing social institutions. Where I part ways with you is that I don't see civilization as a problem. We're not going to revert to an agrarian lifestyle, and that lifestyle isn't even desirable.
If you want to talk about the economic and social consequences of petroleum scarcity, great. But why do you and so many like you have to tinge that discussion with Luddism? Why are you so confident that we can't solve our problems, and that our fall is predetermined? Do you think we need to be punished for our ecological sins?
I believe, no...I know we have the ability to address ALL the constraints facing mankind, even population.
But the reason I believe we won't is primarily due to people who believe that it's not really that big a problem, all we need to do is..., the free market will kick in and we will simply replace ....with...., and so on, and so on.
First thing needed is to accept that unless we ALL accept that the convergence of constraints has the potential to cause massive and total collapse of civilization as we know it, unless we come together and address the issues in a global effort of fairness and equality, assess the remaining resources, agree on a global plan to use these resources for the betterment of humanity, peace on earth, kumbaya.
Whats your plan?
ee, I am much in agreement with your approach. But, on the rare occasions I present anything like my full understanding of our predicament and propose that these facts should be widely taught, I am generally told that this will simply serve to disappoint people to the point that they will become apathetic or worse. I think being continually lied to is more enervating than being given hard truths (and I believe there is some recent research to back this up, but I don't have time to track it down right now).
So I was just wondering if you had any snappy, clever responses to those who say we should shield people from the full truth. Is there an age that people are ready to hear this? Should we wait till people are in college? Or grad school? On the other hand have some kids had so many messages of doom, that they are pretty much numb to it?
Thanks ahead of time, and I do appreciate your real realism.
dohboi - At the risk of incurring the wrath of Gail by being OT... I always harken back to the days after 9/11 when the whole world stepped out of them selves for a minute and expressed solidarity and something akin to brotherly love.
I believe the vast majority of the population is ready for a change. The biggest resistance comes from those who have the most power and money.
Please don't revoke my lifetime Doomers Membership Card for saying these things.
Peace out.
Quotemstr,
every once in a while someone arrives on this site with a flurry of posts like yours. I see your account is almost 4 hours old right now.
Every point you have brought up has been discussed here in depth. You won't believe me, but there is a lot of ground that has been covered on this site and there are very good reasons clear-thinking people are preparing for a contracting economy and less energy.
Instead of posting as though you are trying to start an argument (20 posts and counting), why don't you post a bit here and there and suss out the thinking over the next few weeks? It's difficult to get a conversation going with you interjecting every other post.
why do people keep trying to stifle quotemstr's pov? This is an open forum. This forum also includes a ton of doomer groupthink.
I think he makes good points, he's clearly peak oil aware, but like myself, he separates any sort of normative "back to the land" argument out of it. Thank goodness.
People here love to talk about exponential growth limits, but also don't seem to realize that applies to human knowledge as well. These are going to be interesting times ahead, rational people can disagree without resorting to "you're new here why don't you stop posting and listen".
I would hardly describe TOD as a bunch of Chicken Littles, screaming that the sky is falling.
And, unlike quotemstr, I don't see TOD as a Luddite group. In fact, we are trying to engage people so that action may be taken to preserve something of our culture and civilization. A culture and civilization that could well be emperiled by failing to heed the warnings already given in years and decades long past.
My current opinion is that, quotemstr and his ilk derided Jimmy Carter, and elected St. Ronnie the Wrong. They announced that, "Greed is good," and proceeded to demonstrate precisely why it is not by dismanteling our society in an orgy of spending. Spending of capital, and more importantly spending of energy. We as a society, in particular, have been the most egregious offenders. We have taken cheap oil, squandered it, and now are refusing to see where our actions have led us.
Still, quotemstr has a point of view. In fact, (s)he has many points of view, and it would be nice if (s)he presented one point at a time, and then considered the responses they engendered.
Since I began visiting TOD, I have had any number of my preconceptions refuted. In some cases, my opinion, my point of view, has changed. And, inn some cases I am sure that have changed the views of others, or at least contributed to that. Provided quotemstr is open minded, and we are likewise, his/her contribution could be helpful in going forward. Absent that, no.
The least I would ask is, "One at a time, please."
Craig
The term closest to what I think quotemstr is doing is "browbeating." 42 posts on a single story and counting. On a Drumbeat, Leanan usually comes in before this point and tells the person to ease up. That's one of the benefits of having a moderated discussion rather than an unmoderated one.
However, if everyone is fine with it I'll just give this conversation a miss.
"Do you think we need to be punished for our ecological sins?"
Not sure what you mean by "need to be," but we will be, as will our children (though the global poor and their children, that is those least responsible for the current predicament, will suffer first and worst).
Do you think that action do not have consequences?
I not sure how much insight he gives. He was the one trolling on the website a few weeks ago, blitz the thread.
The more I think about resource constraints in general - and peak oil in particular - the more I am convinced that the only way we will come close to a peaceful division of the remaining stocks is by become a command economy. The old pricing mechanisms won't work any more, at least not as they have done over the last century in the western world. The key to understanding this is to remember that the western world has become extravagantly rich by, let's face it, plundering the third world. The third world has been unable to put up much of a fight to try to stop us from stealing their natural resource wealth partly through lack of education and partly because we also have propped up their leaders and turned a blind eye to the corruption.
Once global resources have peaked (rather than country/region) there will be nowhere else to plunder. At that point the usual market forces will act against the poor within the first world countries who will be outbid by the rich. At this point there is a recipe for real unrest amongst the population and I can see no other way to keep the peace on the downward slope than a command economy of rationing. This form of government is by definition anti-democratic: turkeys don't vote for Christmas. I believe that democracy, on a nation-state level, will become a thing of the past. Instead local feudalism will prevail as has been the norm throughout human history. Modern democracy is an aberration and has coincided with the industrial age of plenty.
The only question is: do we arrive back at feudalism with or without a bloody revolution between those that have access to the resources and those that don't.
First of all, command economies are never peaceful. They're oppressive; anti-democratic governments rely on force to stay in power. The idea of a peaceful dictatorship, or at least one that lasts loner than a generation or two, is pure bunk. If the government has no legitimacy, it won't last long without force.
Really, your post is the ultimate admission of defeat. You recognize that you'll never be able to convince the general population to consent to your hysterical characterization of our resource situation and implement your radical economic policies, so you argue it's necessary to use force to make them consent. And in your mind, it's for their own good, of course.
That attitude is repulsive.
No I haven't. I am hypothesizing about the future, not making a political rallying-cry.
Command economies have been successful during short-term times of crisis such as wars. The problem now is that we seem to have a permanent crisis.
Ideally, widespread recognition that we are living in a world of ever-fewer resources and ever more fragile ecologies would lead to a general understanding that the only fair way to proceed is to share what is left equally, to avoid excess use of any resource by anyone, and to universally embrace lifestyles that are well within the ability of the earth to replace sources used.
The US in general is now so very far from such a mind set, I find it hard to imagine it being widely adopted (though the transition towns folks do seem to be trying to move things in this direction).
Yes this would be ideal but our 3 main energy sources are fossil fuels and therefore non-renewable.How do we share out these ever dwindling resources? Also the maximum sustainable yields on renewables from fish stocks to rainforest are so low they are not going to support much of an economy if we stay within sustainable limits.
Can we have a moderator step in here? Quotemstr is demonstrating a continued inability to discuss topics with civility and is cutting off every thread before it has a chance to mature a little.
Stuff that. Is it your position that any poster who chooses to argue rationally with you and beats you, needs to be silenced? I see where Stalin comes from.
I have a missing response to Quotemstr above. It must have been removed because I used the infernal "D" word (as in don't give a ...).
I'll try to use "darn" from now on, and "shoot" or "shucks, y'all".
Apologies to all!
I'm requesting civility, not silence. Read more closely next time, please.
You aren't the first to come to this conclusion. I was just learning (for the first time, only a century late to the party) about Spengler last night and he apparently supported the rise of a autocratic politician i.e. Hitler. I'm not a rabid defender of personal freedom but that may be because I haven't ever lived in a controlled society like North Korea, for instance.
I'm inclined to stand for a future of responsible free agents that make agreements they will abide by rather than going down the feudal or autocratic route. The problem right now is that the people who are rabid defenders of personal freedom want no agreements (i.e. limitations) whatsoever. Instead of seeing agreements as structures for the success of a society they see them as handcuffs. They are stuck at the level of maturity of a teenager who hasn't figured out that structures are actually useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler
The Decline of the West
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
Spengler's civilization model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler%27s_civilization_model
The price we pay for living in a democratic society is that we make suboptimal decisions. The legitimacy gained from democratic government, however, more than makes up for those poor decisions because it severely curtails violent upheaval and addresses the corruption inherent in any absolutist system. Even if started with the best of intentions, a dictatorship doesn't stay benevolent for many generations. Even if, somehow, an Caesar would come to power and solve the environmental problem, we would have a Caligula in short order who would undo all that good.
quotemaster - You are by far the doomiest of them all. You believe that the US has been a benevolent force in the world? You have not been paying attention.
The price we pay for living in a democratic society is that we make suboptimal decisions.
I'd love to see evidence of that - I'd say it's the reverse: democracies make much better decisions, overall. Authoritarian systems make decisions within a very small circle of people. Democracies draw from a much wider pool. That makes democratic decision making slower, but better.
HA -- OTOH it's very difficult for me to envision such a world. OTOOH, it's hard to ignore the forces that seem to be moving us in that direction. I've certainly seen zero indication that TPTB are acknowledging such potential let alone attempting any adjustment in the the system.
As distasteful as it looks I suppose in such a future "command" structure better to be in the US. And, if in the US, better to be in Texas. Last count we had more weapons/ammo here then the majority of developed nations. And our own oil/NG fields.
Last time I checked, Texas uses more oil than it produces nowadays. Of course, a lot of the imports and US Gulf oil goes into the Houston ship canal, and somebody in Texas will probably refine it. Plus, there is the ammo thing -- although drones are more in vogue and they seem to be piloted from someone in LA.
Not to worried about the drones. We've got quit a few proficient duck hunters here.
Heck...just one more hunting license to buy.
And in the 1930's, the Texas Railroad Commission set quotas to try and keep Texas Oil producers from producing themselves clean out of business(1931 price: 10¢ a barrel.) With National Guard units patrolling the fields to enforce said quota (perhaps because those Texans were so well armed...or maybe that's why they think they need the guns now.) The more things change...
Actually Canuc the TRRC still has proration laws in effect and they are still in full force. But since the early 70's the allowable has been at 100% of production capability. But the TRRC can change that at any time with a simple internal decision. If they do decide (for whatever reason) to limit Texas oil wells to, say, 50% production levels it will be interesting to see how the Feds react.
Two little snags with arguing the desirability of a command economy are (1) benevolent philosopher-kings are ever in short supply and seem impossible to identify reliably, i.e. one soon ends up with some monster-dictator who's then impossible to dislodge without mass killing and wreckage; and (2) the approach was already tried on a vast scale back in the 20th century and yielded immense wastage of resources, rather dismal effects on the regional environment, and awful results for human development and the like.
In the real world, as against utopian fantasy, approaches rooted in the notion that the end justifies any means no matter how harsh seem to have an uncanny way of delivering limitless misery without ever even reaching the desired end. It's hard to imagine a more losing lose-lose proposition.
Now of course that's not to say that large numbers of us might not be subjected in the future to a long period of feudalism, fascism, communism - name whatever form of totalitarian oppression you like - for any of a variety of reasons. After all, oppression and violence are hardly new to the fossil-fuel era. But that it may possibly happen is in no way evidence that it's to be desired.
In the real real world, command economies allowed the US and Great Britain to win the Second World War, got us to the moon, built the interstate highway system...
Oh, but I forgot, being ideologically blinded to any counterexample to ones narrow autistic-economic perspectives means that there are no counterexamples to consider. It's all self-fulfilling fantasy that is then called the "real world."
Yes, a "command economy" got us through World War II. But we landed on the moon and built our highways using ordinary peacetime government procurement procedures. Your comment is misleading at best.
Furthermore, I can't believe you people are complaining about my level of civility while implying that I would need to be autistic to hold the views I do. That's a terrible insult; it indicates that you can't even conceive of a world in which someone might legitimately hold a different opinion. If you consider everyone who disagrees with you to be mentally deficient, you're not going to win many converts.
Can you give a historic example of a benevolent philosopher-king who turned to the dark side?
Not Plato again- he got everything wrong.
I did like his cave analogy, it was the best thing he wrote.
Making up that Socrates character (a local buffoon) was weak.
Tsar Nicholas?
Stalin?
Mao?
I don't see the economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen mentioned in this string. He covered much of this same material many years ago, including an attempted formulation of a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics for material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Georgescu-Roegen
Some observations:
Figure 6 shows that aluminium and bauxite have a NNR Scarcity Level of "very high".
Extract from Wikipedia: "... Although aluminium is the MOST ABANDONED metallic element in the Earth's crust, it is never found in free, metallic form. Compared to most other metals, it is difficult to extract from ore, such as bauxite, due to the energy required." That seems to be in contradiction with the scarcity claim in Figure 6.
Figure 8 lists gives Bauxite in 2030 a permanent global supply shortfall of "low". If Bauxite has already a NNR scarcity level "very high" in the 2000-2008 period then one would expect that the supply shortfall will increase.
The article mentions: “….Actual annual global extraction levels associated with … rare earth … are not expected to exceed their projected Verhulst global peak extraction levels prior to the year 2030.” That depends whether the economy contracts due to oil and NG shortages or expands.
Global demand for these materials is booming, tripling over the past decade from 40,000 to 120,000 tons. Rare earth elements are used in a host of technologies from iPhones, to fibre-optic cables, to missile guidance systems. And they are also essential for a swath of low-carbon technologies from catalytic converters, to nuclear power rods.
Examples:
Lanthanum (electric car batteries)
Terbium, Neodymium, Dysprosium (high-strength magnets)
Erbium - makes possible a wide range of light-weight, high-strength metal alloys;
Thulium, Yttrium (high-frequency lasers).
Hence, if electric cars are produced by the millions then there will be a severe shortage. The Toyota Prius uses 2.2 lbs of neodymium in the hybrid's electric motor and 22-33 lbs of lanthanum in the car's battery pack.
Plus, the phrase "Verhulst global peak extraction levels" is gobbledygook. Solving the conventional Verhulst equation leads to a steady state carrying capacity. These equations should only be used for biological processes that can reach some sort of equilibrium and not for studies of non-renewable resource depletion.
Neodymium is convenient, but not essential. For instance, the Chevy Volt motor doesn't use it.
Similarly, the Prius's NIMH battery will likely be replaced by li-ion (and there's plenty of lithium).
BTW, " 22-33 lbs of lanthanum in the car's battery pack" seems quite high. Do you have a source?
Each battery uses 10 to 15 kilograms (22 to 33 pounds) of lanthanum. The amount is easy to find online, but I do not know its accuracy.
The only real and lasting solution is for a whole lot less of the biomass to be tied up in human flesh. The stupid vanity of everyone needing to satisfy their egos by replicating themselves multiple times over is actually the source of the problem and there is no solution but to go to the heart of this issue. Empowering women helps tremendously. But it will take another great rise in the general level of human consciousness. Or something really nasty from the the field of microbiology.
On your last point, I have read that human flesh is now the largest single source of flesh of one type in the world, and nature, even more than a vacuum, abhors an unexploited uniform food source (or mono-culture). It is surely only a matter of time before some clever microbe or bug figures out to exploit this food source and to dodge our attempts to control it.
Focusing on human flesh biomass is a nice angle, and gives rise to some disturbing yet apt visual imagery.
Those who count on continuing a "mono-fleshed destiny" for earth simply don't understand how evolution works.
The opportunity is available, and nature abhors a vacuum.
Something will use this available flesh for energy.
Check out the early 1970s movie "Idaho Transfer" for an answer to that opportunity.
Quotemstr- try a simple little exercise. Get a pile of sand, gravel or soil dumped in your driveway. Say two cubic metres, or two yards. Take shovel. First evening, take one shovelful away. Second evening, two shovelfuls, third evening, four. This equates to the 'doubling time' of exponential growth (which happens at any % rate). For a while it will seem like the pile will be blocking your way forever, but - trust me - it won't.
I can tell you how it ends. The last evening, you will remove the last half of the pile, essentially. The evening before that, you'd have gone from 1/4 to 1/2, and the one before, from 1/8 to 1/4. So in the last three evenings, you shifted 7/8 of the pile. I'll bet, when you stood there with it 1/8 gone, it looked forever. I'll bet it took more swings of the shovel to scoop up that last half, too, and that is will contain more contaminants.
Now try waving a fistful of dollars over the space. No effect? Gosh darn. How can that be?
Back to the real problem. You need one essential item to shift any pile of anything - energy. Primary-school (grade school?) science says you can't do work without it - indeed we can trace your cornflakes to that shovelling.
Talk nuclear? It only does electricity. Check out the kilowattage involved in food alone - tractors and trucks and fertiliser. How much does the grid need beefed up? What's it made of? Gosh, darn, aluminium and copper. Dang, and we're already using them to power the mines.....
What the problem is, is that economists were high-priests of a phase only - the phase of up-and-up, the first half of that pile. It is over now, so the mantra will become increasingly irrelevant. One of the key points, is that 'interest' can only be repaid by the next 'go-round' being bigger than the last. We have run out of that option - so physics folk like us are unsurprised to see the Fed with a rate near zero, and only Australia (last pile in the driveway) increasing.
It's an uncomfortable 'learn', but reality beats mantra any day.
Nice!
Economics is important. But the economic system operates inside the environmental system, consuming fossil inputs and outputting long lived waste product outputs. All you need to cause a society to peak and decline are input costs that go up, and waste costs that increase over time. A simple example is Tar Sands. Higher input cost (needs more fuel, metal, labor, etc) than conventional oil. And higher waste production (Co2, toxics releases into the water, air).
It is worth taking a really close look at the models underpinning the book Limits to Growth. They are very simple. Most economists will recognize them instantly (capital investment and depreciation underpins the industrial growth piece). And examples of the models mechanics are everywhere. It takes more investment per barrel to find oil, or more investment per ton to produce coal, gold, copper, etc.
This is not rocket science. No differential equations needed. Just some simple accounting. And yet the results are peak and decline.
There is a very good text that explains very clearly where economics fails to explain or predict well: "Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process" 1985, Charles A.S. Hall.
Or use the Google search above to look for TOD articles by Cutler Cleveland (Try 10 Fundamental Principals of Net Energy Analysis if you want a starting place)
http://nyc.theoildrum.com/tag/cutler_cleveland
or Douglas Reynolds
http://drupal.theoildrum.com/node/2913
Your comment is so flawed that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, I know what exponential growth is. I write well enough that you should realize I know. Trying to explain it to me is condescending.
You know damn well that the human population will not continue to grow indefinitely. A developed-world lifestyle and education decreases fertility, and standards of living are increasing worldwide. We're not looking at sustaining exponential growth forever, which is clearly impossible, but rather until world fertility drops to an acceptable level.
As for your energy comment: it's astounding that you don't see that energy is fungible. If we have plentiful electricity, we can use it to crack seawater, then take the hydrogen and use it for portable power. Or we use that electricity to spin up flywheels, charge batteries, pump water into reservoirs, or compress air. There are numerous approaches to portable vehicular power that take electricity as the energy input.
Your understanding of economics is also deficient. The zero interest rate is not a reflection of the prospect of growth ending, but rather a response to a liquidity trap in our financial sector, which is purely a problem of our own devising. It has nothing to do with resource constraints.
Look: you can make pigheaded, incorrect, and arrogant comments all day long. But mainstream society will not take you seriously unless you engage it on reasonable terms. Unless you're prepared to come to the table with something more palatable than "we're all going to die; there's nothing we can do; and let's install a dictator to manage the die-off", you're just screaming into the wind.
I like you, quotemonster. You stimulate vigorous debate and that is useful. Then again, you point your finger a lot, and that's telling, but I find your points of view valuable, if not agreeable. I hope you keep coming back and realise that TOD welcomes all viewpoints (and a dose of civility to temper the discussion). If we all challenge each others' points of view enough, wisdom may result. For me, that is the goal. That's why I keep coming back.
BTW, a sense of humor goes a long way on TOD ;-)
Not quite my kind of debate. The main post keeps on promoting the idea of Verhulst equations as properly describing resource depletion. Unless we get this right, there is no sense at all in discussing economics.
Everytime I see Verhulst mentioned I get irritated because the Verhulst equations reach at equilibrium a steady-state carrying capacity level -- which is NOT what resource depletion is all about. Only living organisms (or perhaps recyclable material) reaches a carrying capacity. Non-renewable resources go toward ZERO, not a finite carrying capacity. How many times do we have to see this birth-death and predator-prey model miscontrued and misapplied?
I know that is a rhetorical question because once something like this gets a toehold, it becomes just about impossible to correct.
The entire top post contains many questionable assertions simply because no one actually knows how to do resource depletion analysis correctly. All the quailifiers such as "nearly certain probability", "highly certain probability", etc are really just empty assertions because I see no fundamental analysis justifying the subjectivity.
I thought that money is something in the mind of a computer, and has something to do with lots of zeros and a decimal point.
It is more fantastic than string theory.
Here's what I find palatable.
My grandchildren are in with a chance because their grandfather is looking out for them.
quotemstr is obviously not a troll, it's so obvious in fact that I have a hard time believing that some of you folks believe he's a troll.
Those of you who absurdly think he's a troll should actually try and debate his points rather than go into condescending mini-diatribes about limits to growth.
Almost everyone here, I guarantee it, including quotemstr, has read at least one scholarly book or article on limits to growth. It's probably at least part of the reason most people that aren't in the oil industry or energy industry seek this blog out.
It's a sliding scale from doomer to cornocopian, just because quotemstr, and myself for that matter, are on a different part of the scale than the loud majority on this blog doesn't mean we are "trolling" or "ignorant" or "economists" or whatever other labels TOD herd likes to bestow.
The arrogance of those that see the future with a crystal ball would do well to remember the limits of knowledge and the fallacies of induction. We can predict, we should just prepare to be wrong. Remember even solid methods yielding solid probabilities can be wrong simply due to randomness.
madvillain:
You can go back to your cave now.
erm, he branded at least two people as anti nuclear even though they hadnt mentioned nuke power in their posts. He is therefore looking for an argument instead of actively trying to debate the issues.
Madvillain has created an all-time great quote which I only see once in a blue moon. You see, real analysis uses the mathematical concept of probabilities to take into account the effects of randomness. So your statement constitutes a circular non-sequitor.
I think you have reached a limit to your knowledge.
It's astounding, yet perfectly understandable, that you believe that energy is fungible. It isn't. But go ahead.
Maybe quotemstr is using the economic definition of fungible that means one barrel of crude oil is easily exchanged with another barrel of crude oil. As best as I have been able to interpret, fungible as used on The Oil Drum means something that is easily exchanged with something different to perform the identical function. Crude oil is fungible by the first definition but not by the second.
The oil price shock of 2008 (caused by declining crude oil exports) put recessionary pressure on the U.S. economy, but I do agree that the subprime crises mainly caused the credit crisis. Some people on TOD think the subprime crisis was caused by the inability of global crude oil production to increase beginning in 2004. They think the financial shenanigans were a response to an economy struggling to grow due to a constant supply of crude oil. I suspect resource constraints had something to do with it, and their contribution will become more pronounced in the future.
An important point (made by others) about these NNR tables is the fundamental difference between the entries oil, coal, gas, and uranium versus all of the rest. the concentrated energy in these makes all of the others useful, and conversely, any scarcity in these renders the others irrelevant. furthermore with abundant, high EROEI energy sources, scarce minerals can be extracted from sea water. industrial civilization as we know it was built on high EROEI (~100) energy sources and that is what is disappearing. we really do not know what kind of civilization, what level of prosperity, what size population can be sustained on lower EROEI energy sources. we just do not know. it seems like a prudent strategy might be "prepare for the worst, and hope for the best". but no political leaders even acknowledge that there is a problem, so of course there is no movement toward mitigation, much less solutions. wishful thinking is comforting while there is still cheap oil, but it really looks like an unwillingness to confront the fundamental issue.
Good point, hoser.
I don't think it helps a lot to have a post like this one containing tables with such sweeping assertions. Each resource should really have a post of its own so we can see all the assumptions.
Hosehead, we have a fair-sized sample of the kinds of civilization that can be sustained on very modest EROEI levels: all the world's civilizations prior to 1750 or so. Now of course that doesn't mean those are the only kinds of civilization that can be sustained at those lower levels, but that history does give us some tolerably good data points to start the discussion.
In other words, we can be pretty sure that something like a late medieval level of tech, prosperity, population, etc. can be sustained on low EROEI, because comparable levels have been sustained on that energy budget repeatedly in history. The question then becomes whether we can do better than that. In the short to middle run, I have severe doubts, largely because our entire leadership and most of the population as well are stuck in fantasies of perpetual progress, and are showing a perverse talent for making counterproductive choices. In the long run -- the "ecotechnic future" I've discussed elsewhere -- I think we can.
The balance is going to be, on one hand, how much technological advantage do we have to bring that prosperity/population above the natural carrying capacity, against, the environmental degradation we have caused to the Earth, and which is currently ongoing.
A bit like an accurate EROEI its impossible to calculate.
we have a fair-sized sample of the kinds of civilization that can be sustained on very modest EROEI levels
Isn't that irrelevant, given that we have a scalable energy source with reasonably high E-ROI, namely wind power? If we want to look at risk, shouldn't we be looking at questions about the hazards of a short term transition, rather than long-term questions of what kind of civilization can run on low E-ROI?
In my view, it's not irrelevant looking at past civilizations because there is simply no guarantee we will build out any of the technology solutions (such as wind) that you assert will get the job done. I would bet that we won't build out more than a fraction of what we "need."
Plus, it's not just energy that we are facing problems with. We are in overshoot which is, by definition, a temporary condition. We should be planning for both the hazards of the short term transition AND the decline of our species, thusly:
there is simply no guarantee we will build out any of the technology solutions (such as wind) that you assert will get the job done.
Ah, but what is the "job"? If it's supplying an adequate amount of electricity during a transition to renewables, that's already done. We don't need wind for that - we have plenty of coal for the next 50 years*. No, we need wind quickly to deal with climate change, not energy scarcity.
We are in overshoot which is, by definition, a temporary condition.
If you look closely at the footprint/overshoot analysis, you'll see that the large majority of it is energy: PO and AGW. Well, PO isn't Peak Energy, so an analysis of a low-EROEI society doesn't apply (of course, I'd argue oil can and will be replaced, but that's another discussion).
Climate change...well, I'm not confident we'll move quickly on that. That's our bigger problem, not energy scarcity, or E-ROI.
*There are very, very large resources which are currently not "economic". For instance, Alaska has 2-5 trillion tons of coal, and very likely has 200 billion which are recoverable (a 200 year supply for the US). And, yet, it's not being used at all right now, because it's significantly more expensive than lower-48 coal.
Closer to home, the Illinois Basin has 150 billion tons which are being ignored right now because of a relatively small cost differential due to sulfur content. Analysts like the Energy Watch Group take a superficial look at production statistics, and declare that Illinois coal has peaked - that's highly unrealistic.
What is the extraction rate for this coal? What type of coal is it?
Alaskan coal: relatively small stockpiles of coal shipped to Chile and Asia. As I said, it's significantly more expensive due to it's location.
"Rajive Ganguli, a mining engineer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said much of Alaska's coal reserves holds relatively low sulfur and mercury levels, making it environmentally cleaner than coal from many regions."
http://www.adn.com/2009/12/19/1063247/alaska-coal-exports-up-in-2009.html
-----------
"A few years ago, estimates of Alaska's coal resources placed them at approximately 130 billion tons. Now, largely because of better knowledge about the coal beneath the North Slope and the offshore area beyond, the estimates range from 1,860 billion to 5,000 billion tons.
This, of course, is a huge energy resource if it could all be recovered for use. Full recovery is unlikely because much of the coal is deeply buried, of not the best quality or is at locations where transportation is lacking.
In estimating what portion of an identified coal resource is recoverable, experts considering reserves elsewhere in the United States pick figures ranging from one percent to over twenty percent. And that percentage generally is applied only to known resources, not those which are hypothesized to exist on the basis of surface outcrops or sparse drilling information. Nor does the percentage apply to resources speculated to exist, such as off Alaska's northern coast, on the basis of even less information. The 1,850 billion to 5,000 billion ton estimate for Alaska includes these hypothesized or speculated resources.
But suppose Alaska really does have a coal resource amounting to the lower figure, 1,850 billion tons, and suppose that 10% of it is recoverable. That means Alaska could recover 185 billion tons."
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF4/492.html
So, the 5T figure is an upper limit for resources, not a reserve figure. Of course, 185B tons is more than enough...
--------------------------------
Illinois coal is bituminous ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625d/ ) - it's a higher grade than Powder River coal, but a little more expensive for electrical generation, due to it's sulfur content.
I quite liked this:
"Your understanding of economics is also deficient. The zero interest rate is not a reflection of the prospect of growth ending, but rather a response to a liquidity trap in our financial sector, which is purely a problem of our own devising. It has nothing to do with resource constraints".
I'm not saying anyone in the Fed thinks that it's over, I'm saying that they had no option but to do what they did in the circumstances - which are that it's over....
Think about it. Someone starts up an enterprise. Needs capital. Bank supplies, but it's 'created' money. That's OK, because the created money goes from the borrower to his suppliers, and back into a bank. The problem is that, as a fee for 'loaning' this virtual 'wealth', the bank charges 'interest'. Our starter-upper has to find income over and above the principal, to pay this. So the system enlarges each round.
We are left with only one question: can that happen ex resource extraction/use/consumption. Answer? Obviously not, or Obama wouldn't have gone a'drilling, the US wouldn't be in Iraq (weapons of what, again?) etc. The correlation between 'economic growth' and energy use (the key resource) is symbiotic, and has been since I started looking at them in 1975(ish).
I'll stick with my understanding of economics, alle same my understanding of religion. Indeed, I can hardly tell them apart.
I saw someone upthread blithely suggest that the population issue would be resolved when fertility rates declined in response to over population. Get thee to a biology class and look at the consequences of overshoot. We've been there for some time now and are still on an upward trajectory. To me, all the signs say that the crash is going to be unpleasant and if that puts me in the doomer camp, well you can only call 'em as you see 'em.