Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: energy reserves



Rereading my post I see it could be read as ambiguous. I had intended
to write:

bc, a chicken little. ......,

but forgot. I was attempting to ridicule the administration, people, et
al. who call us, including JD and I presume the majority of this list,
chicken littles.


I also suggested coal wouldn't help much, a rather porous umbrella.
However, I disagree on JD's U point. Reprocessing, I understand
supplies more "fuel" that originally "burned". Furthermore, Th is
supposedly another "fuel". [Th = 3 X U] In searching the previous, I
found this interesting pro. nuclear site:

http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/index.html#TopAnchor

Of course switching to these cycles will make available many tons of
bomb grade material. As I write I hear (radio) anti-nukes discussing
their activities for the 60th anniversary.


You all have read the TPT's article on Pu production from various
concentrations of U 235?


bc, who does his bit by driving a Prius, and we switched 95% to CFL's.


p.s. We live on space ship earth; nothing is inexhaustible, even the Sun
will "burnout".




John Denker wrote:
Bernard Cleyet wrote:


The Chicken Littles warn that we'll be weaned, of oil at least, in much
less than a century. The alternative is switching to a coal economy,
but I think it'll be as difficult as the alternatives mentioned by RT.


Chicken Little is the fairy-tale personification of paranoia. Therefore
I interpret BC's statement as highly derogatory. If this was not the
intended interpretation, please clarify.

Some discussion of energy reserves and the exhaustion thereof can be
found at:
http://www.av8n.com/physics/fossil-resources.htm
which is based on a calculation that can be found at
http://www.av8n.com/physics/energy-reserves.html

This concludes that "switching to coal" is not much of an "alternative".
Extrapolating current usage suggests that coal will last longer than
oil, but not much longer ... and switching doesn't solve the main problem,
namely exhaustion of the *total* fossil energy reserves. U235 doesn't
change the story very much, either, because there's not enough of it.

IMHO this is a methodical and dispassionate analysis. If you disagree
with the raw data, please provide better data. If you disagree with
the method of analysis, please present a more-meticulous analysis.

I've presented my evidence in detail. I see no reason to consider it
a paranoid fairy tale. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see
the evidence. Name-calling is not helpful.