On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>
>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>> over budget!).
>>>
>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>> some time before the present day?
>>
>> No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
>> 70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
>> inevitiable.
>
> Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the planet.
> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make more
> of what we need.
>
> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I
> wonder what it will be next decade.
> https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>
> Lynn
>
>
This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
Lynn! =)

Best regards,
Daniel

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/7/2024 2:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>>>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
>>>>>> the motivation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited
>>>>> amount of each in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> "unlimited" is hyperbole.
>>>
>>> Not in this case. We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
>>> in the USA.
>>
>> Cite? Economically recoverable? At what environmental cost?
>>
>>> We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
>>
>> Cite? At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate? And who
>> has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?
>>
>>> The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
>>> facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
>>> wonders of fracking.
>>
>> Ah, which goes back to cost.
>>
>> And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>> cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>>
>> Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
>> CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
>> affect global temperatures.
>
> Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong. Just remember one
> thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long term planning
> viewpoint.

Lynn, you are a hero! How does one start to work in the oil industry? My
Chevron shares have been very kind to me the last couple of years! =)

On 2/8/2024 10:43 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels.   Until
>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>>> discussion).  To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>
>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>
>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>> inevitiable.
>>
>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers are
>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>> planet. I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out
>> how to make more of what we need.
>>
>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052.
>> I wonder what it will be next decade.
>>   https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
> Lynn! =)
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>

There really needs to be a gender identifying version of Lynn, such as
Frances/Francis.

D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>
>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>

>>> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
>>> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
>>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
>>> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
>>> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
>>>
>> You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are experiencing
>> population crashes and birth rates have been declining world-wide for many
>> years now.
>
>Let me add the anecdote that Hans Rosling of gapminder fame (in the EU
>atleast, doubt anyone in US has heard about him) has theorized that the
>population of earth will reach an equilibrium at around 12 billion.

That's an increase of 50% from today. With a corresponding increase
in global energy consumption. Good luck with that. The horseman
will likely ride first, if they haven't already started....

D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>
>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>
>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>
>>> No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>> 70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
>>> inevitiable.
>>
>> Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the planet.
>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make more
>> of what we need.
>>
>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I
>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>> https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>Lynn! =)

He may not appreciate that remark.

On 2/8/2024 9:36 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <uq2nm8$7hs$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>>> cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>>
>> This is the real problem with fracking, the fact that so much gas is
>> wasted and released into the air instead of being recovered. For
>> the oil companies this is a waste of money, for local residents
>> it is a safety hazard, and for all of us it is a big contributor
>> to global warming. Methane is much worse per unit volume than CO2
>> release.
>>
>> But this is a technical issue that likely can be solved. The problem
>> is that the companies currently making money from the fracking process
>> don't really have any incentive to solve it.
>
> It's a self-limiting problem, though. Once climate change begins
> to significantly affect agriculture, the human population should
> decline and with it demand. In the long run, no more serious than
> the effects of the Siberian traps.

Yup, only 70-90% of life dies, and only a few million years to recover.

pt

On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <467a464c-e30e-897e-982c-b841d618f410@example.net>,
> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>
>>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>
>> I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where
>> environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily agree.
>> The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the
>> technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the
>> hysterics get less CO2.
>>
>> Everyone wins!
>
> Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
> really care about the environment, and aren't just using
> it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.

What 'other agenda' are you proposing?

pt

On 2/8/2024 11:40 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2024 8:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels.   Until
>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>>> discussion).  To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say.   Sure, but there
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here
>>>>> and there
>>>>> from the 1960s).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater,
>>>>> but,
>>>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in
>>>>> quantities
>>>>> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>>>>>
>>>>> Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
>>>>> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
>>>>> 70 years.   Exponential growth is bad.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one
>>>> cherry
>>>> picked by me from here
>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
>>>>
>>>> "The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
>>>> rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
>>>> conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
>>>
>>> That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
>>>
>>> Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
>>>
>>>
>>> and 270
>>>> years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
>>>
>>> Undiscovered.  Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to
>>>> either go
>>>> for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old
>>>> uranium.
>>>
>>> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size.  What do we do in
>>> the mean time?   Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
>>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
>>> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
>>> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy
>>> consumption).
>>>
>> You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
>> experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
>> world-wide for many years now.
>
> Let me add the anecdote that Hans Rosling of gapminder fame (in the EU
> atleast, doubt anyone in US has heard about him) has theorized that the
> population of earth will reach an equilibrium at around 12 billion.
>
> That would have implications on the argument above.

12B is definitely at the high end of estimates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World_Population_Prospects.svg

the median estimate is closer to 10B, and I suspect it will be less.

pt

On 2/7/2024 6:14 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>> On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
>> global supply of U.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.
>
>> The global supply of U is enough for many
>> thousands of years.
>
> That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
> dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
> "mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
>
>
> ? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
>> reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
>> reserves?
>
> You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
> oil-death either way.
>
>>
>> The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
>> ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but
>> nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.
>
> I understand exponential growth. The recommended inflation rate
> of circa 2.8% is exponential, with about a 70 year doubling period, for example.

Just interjecting that you clearly don't. 2.8% doubles
in less than 26 years.

There's a shortcut for this, call the 'Rule of 72'. If you have an
an account bearing compound interest, you can divide 72 by the rate
to get the number of compoundings required to double it.

pt

On 2/7/2024 9:52 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <nBWwN.270326$Ama9.40917@fx12.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
>> if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.
>
> Existing solutions to the waste issue need to be implemented
> in spite of the omni-obstructionism of the people who don't
> want any nuclear power at all, and are using the waste issue
> they are blocking any solution for as a scare point.
>
> We should reprocess, not throw away valuable fuel.
>
> Transuranics (the long-lived stuff) can in principle be burned
> up by putting them in new fuel rods. They'll alternately absorb
> neutrons and decay until they hit a fissionable isotope, and
> enter the fission product problem set. This is especially true
> of everybody's favorite scare item, plutonium.
>
> Fission products are the super-hot stuff, and they are
> relatively short-lived. In a few hundred years, there is less
> total radioactivity in the fission products than there was in
> the ore that was mined to make the fuel that created that part
> of the waste.

Compare with mercury from burning coal, which remains dangerous
until the protons decay.

pt

On 2024-02-08, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
>> on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
>>
>> It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction
>> to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.
>
> Thank you. I will make a note of it, but I won't promise to read it
> tonight.

It's not clear it's worth it. Murphy is a doom predictor of the same ilk
as the Club of Rome in the 60s or the oil doom-sayers of the 70s.

From a review in the American Journal of Physics.
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article/89/9/897/593796/Energy-and-Human-Ambitions-on-a-Finite-Planet
The book's structural awkwardness may be a side effect of the
author's main agenda: convincing the reader that humanity's future
is in great peril. On the spectrum that runs from technological
optimists to Malthusian pessimists, Murphy lies near the
Malthusian extreme.
...
He advises his readers to learn to grow their own food, choose a
career that doesn't depend too much on technology, take up
backpacking as a way to “toughen up” for a “less cushy” lifestyle,
and consider the “toll on our planet” of choosing to have
children.

Murphy ignores evidence and arguments that don't advance his central
thesis. At least he did that in chapter 15 on nuclear fission (the
only one I read) with his arguments on the scarcity of uranium. No
reputable scientist in the area would now base anything on "proven
reserves". Even in the 70s oil estimates, most scientists knew much
better; it was just the popular press that considered proven reserves
instead of global resource supply. See for example "Oil Forecasts,
Past and Present" in
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/014459802321615108

Chris

On 2/8/2024 10:44 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2024 2:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>>>>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the
>>>>>>> means and
>>>>>>> the motivation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water.  We have an
>>>>>> unlimited
>>>>>> amount of each in the USA.
>>>>>
>>>>> "unlimited" is hyperbole.
>>>>
>>>> Not in this case.  We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
>>>> in the USA.
>>>
>>> Cite? Economically recoverable?   At what environmental cost?
>>>
>>>> We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
>>>
>>> Cite?  At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate?  And who
>>> has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?
>>>
>>>> The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
>>>> facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets.  The
>>>> wonders of fracking.
>>>
>>> Ah, which goes back to cost.
>>>
>>> And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>>> cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>>>
>>> Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
>>> CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
>>> affect global temperatures.
>>
>> Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong.  Just remember
>> one thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long
>> term planning viewpoint.
>
> Lynn, you are a hero! How does one start to work in the oil industry? My
> Chevron shares have been very kind to me the last couple of years! =)

I did some free work for Chevron a couple of years ago. When I started
asking for payment, they shut the project down. Turns out they were
using me to beat on their current software supplier who could not get
the job done. Typical.

I have been working in the crude oil and natural gas business since
1975, I was 15. I was writing software for my father way back then.

Lynn

On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>
>>>> No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>> 70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
>>>> inevitiable.
>>>
>>> Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the planet.
>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make more
>>> of what we need.
>>>
>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I
>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>> https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>> Lynn! =)
>
> He may not appreciate that remark.

I am used to it. And Lynn is not my first name.

Lynn

On 2/8/2024 11:09 AM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 10:43 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels.   Until
>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a
>>>>>> separate
>>>>>> discussion).  To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>
>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>> inevitiable.
>>>
>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers
>>> are continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on
>>> the planet. I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure
>>> out how to make more of what we need.
>>>
>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052.
>>> I wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>   https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>> Lynn! =)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>
> There really needs to be a gender identifying version of Lynn, such as
> Frances/Francis.

Or Michael and Michaela. Of course, there is Lynn and Lynne.

Lynn

On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>> On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
>>> global supply of U.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I said.
>>
>>> The global supply of U is enough for many
>>> thousands of years.
>>
>> That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
>> dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
>> "mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
>
> The uranium is out there. That is NOT "pure speculation". Yes, I
> agree it is not currently economic to get at the uranium in the ocean.
> The current cost is 10 times the cost of mined uranium or lower; do
> you claim that that cost won't go down?
>
>>
>> ? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
>>> reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
>>> reserves?
>>
>> You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
>> oil-death either way.
>
> But you did state that the 1970's oil estimates were accurate. I
> mistakenly gave you credit for understanding that the
> total-oil-out-there estimates of scientists were the important
> estimates, and those have indeed not changed much. However, the
> known-reserves estimates that were used by the doomsayers back then were
> quite inaccurate. Even the estimates of the mid-70s that had risen to
> 500-600 million barrels were badly off. We've already consumed about
> twice that and the current remaining known-reserves are about three
> times that now.
>
>>>
>>> The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
>>> ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but
>>> nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.
>>
>> I understand exponential growth. The recommended inflation rate
>> of circa 2.8% is exponential, with about a 70 year doubling period, for example.
>>
>>>
>>> The 70's articles did not take into account the effect of technology;
>>> you dismiss the effect also.
>>
>> I don't know who you're talking to here. I certainly take that into
>> account - in all respects from energy efficiency to energy production.
>> Clearly fracking, for example, has extended the usefulness of a lot
>> of played out oilfields. But, the output curves for fracking wells
>> are significantly shorter than regular production wells.
>>
>> Fracking is a temporary blip in the exploitation of a fundamentally
>> limited resource. Technology can't create energy from nothing
>> (absent Stargate zed-pee-emms)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> U cost is NOT currently a major factor in the cost of nuclear power.
>>> Nuclear power is expensive because of the capital costs not the
>>
>> Indeed. Look at Vogtle #3, which just came on line, or Vogtle #4.
>>
>> That's for two 1GB reactors. Do the math. Who's gonna bankroll
>> additional nuclear plants using the current state of the art
>> technology?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong - I believe nuclear fission power production
>> will always play a role in energy production. It cannot, however
>> ever produce enough to replace current a future fossil sources
>> by itself. I never wrote otherwise.
>
> But you haven't proven that at all.
>
>>> operating costs. And even the operating costs are not that highly
>>> dependent on U costs. Doubling the cost of enriched U will increase
>>
>> You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
>> of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).
>
> Note you're off by a factor of 1000 here (ppm not ppb), not that it
> changes much. The uranium exists; seawater by itself is many times more
> than 1000 years.
>
>> "Total world resources of uranium, as with any other mineral
>> or metal, are not known exactly. The only meaningful measure
>> of long-term security of supply is the known reserves in the
>> ground capable of being mined."
>>
>>
>> The chart shows 8 million tons assured and inferred resources as
>> of 2017. Of which 3 million have already been mined. Each reactor
>> requires 67,500 tonnes per year.
>>
>> https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
>>
>> They note the 90 year supply (for a four-hundred reactor fleet).
>>
>> They go on to add
>>
>> " Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the
>> basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources
>> as present ones are used up."
>
> They also say that 90 years is a higher level of assurance than is
> available for most minerals. They then say that some folks view the
> supply of uranium as the Achilles heel of nuclear power but then they
> go on at great length to say why this is wrong and lacks "empirical
> support".
>
> Why on earth would anybody spend large sums of money to find new
> reserves of uranium when we have a 90 year supply already? The lead
> time on building nuclear plants is so large that there will be decades
> before that 90 year supply is significantly affected even with massive
> growth of nuclear power.
>
> The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.
> The capital costs are enormous and the other operating costs are more
> than the uranium. The cost of uranium can easily rise by a factor of
> 5-10 before it really affects the economics, assuming that the capital
> costs can be substantially diminished with the massive adaptation you
> have been talking about.
>
>>
>>> Repeating the 70's oil arguments for uranium should convince no-one in
>>> today's world.
>>
>> I just posted the facts. You're posting speculation. I'll be happy
>> to see more economically discoverable Uranium on the market - I've been
>> a shareholder in CCJ for more than a decade. I just would not make
>> any plans that _count_ on it for survival.
>> I'll just note that fracking is like squeezing the last drops from
>> a sponge. Eventually, the sponge is dry.
>
> Exactly what "speculation" of mine do you disagree with? That
> 1. There is a lot of uranium out there?
> 2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?
> 3. That the costs of uranium are a small part of the cost of a nuclear
> plant and have room to rise substantially if the capital costs go down?
> 4. That there will be much greater reserves discovered when it is
> financially worth-while looking for more?
>
> There are reasonable arguments against nuclear power, eg capital costs,
> waste management, danger. But availability of uranium is not a major
> danger at all.
>
> Chris

The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil. The current
USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
$45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.

Lynn

On 2/7/2024 8:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:
>> In article <1RvwN.58394$24ld.10093@fx07.iad>,
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
>>> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>>
>> According to a paper I read back in the early 80s, Japan
>> demonstrated sometime about 1979 an ion exchange process
>> that could extract uranium from seawater at a cost of about
>> $750/pound in 1979 dollars. Expensive, yes, but given the
>> energy content of uranium...
>
> Note that is for non fissile Uranium. Only 0.72% of that
> is fissile 235U.
>
> So don't forget the enrichment costs.
>
>
> From Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet:
>
> First, we take 0.72 % of the 7.6 million tons available to
> represent the portion of uranium in the form of 235U. Enrichment (next
> section) will not separate all of the 235U, and the reactor can't burn all of
> it away before the fuel rod is essentially useless. So optimistically, we
> burn half of the mined U in the reactor. Multiplying the resulting
> 27,300 tons of usable 235U by the 17 million kcal/g we derived earlier
> yields a total of 2x10^21 J. Table 15.10 puts this in context against fossil fuel
> proven reserves from page 127. We see from this that proven uranium
> reserves give us only 20% as much energy as our proven oil reserves,
> and about 5% of our total remaining fossil fuel supply. If we tried to get
> all 18 TW from this uranium supply, it would last less than 4 years! This
> does not sound like a salvation.
>
> He then goes on to a discussion about breeder reactors, which can burn
> the 238U without the expensive (and hazardous) enrichment processes
> required to concentrate 235U. (238U + N = 239U. 23 minutes later, 239U - B = 239Np,
> 2.4 days later, 239Np - B = 239Pu).
>
> The downsides of course are proliferation risks.
>
> And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
> if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.

Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.

Lynn

On 2024-02-08, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
>>>>global supply of U.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what I said.
>>>
>>>> The global supply of U is enough for many
>>>>thousands of years.
>>>
>>> That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
>>> dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
>>> "mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
>>
>>The uranium is out there. That is NOT "pure speculation". Yes, I
>>agree it is not currently economic to get at the uranium in the ocean.
>>The current cost is 10 times the cost of mined uranium or lower; do
>>you claim that that cost won't go down?
>>
>>>
>>> ? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
>>>>reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
>>>>reserves?
>>>
>>> You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
>>> oil-death either way.
>>
>>But you did state that the 1970's oil estimates were accurate.
>
> No, I did not. I never addressed 1970's oil estimates at all.
>
> I was discussing Uranium, not oil.

Oh????

From scott@slp53.sl.home Thu Feb 8 14:57:00 2024
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
...
>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>> discussion). ...
>
>Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>some time before the present day?
No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.

As I said on the part you snipped, since the 70s we've already
consumed about twice the 70s proven reserves. Proven reserves say
very little; few scientists in the area direcctly use those figures.

>
>>> You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
>>> of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).
>>
>>Note you're off by a factor of 1000 here (ppm not ppb),
>
> Yes. Typo.
>
> not that it
>>changes much.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The uranium exists; seawater by itself is many times more
>>than 1000 years.
>
> Assuming it can be economnically mined. and subsequently enriched.

You snipped my statements of economics of seawater extraction, presumably
because you didn't want to disagree with them. Good, we agree. A 6500
year supply of uranium in seawater seems to be the current scientific
estimate for amounts.

>>
>>They also say that 90 years is a higher level of assurance than is
>>available for most minerals. They then say that some folks view the
>>supply of uranium as the Achilles heel of nuclear power but then they
>>go on at great length to say why this is wrong and lacks "empirical
>>support".
>>
>>Why on earth would anybody spend large sums of money to find new
>>reserves of uranium when we have a 90 year supply already?
>
> Because the topic was replacing fossil fuels with U before they
> run out. Do try to keep up.
How can I possibly keep up when you keep on snipping the parts of
my responses that are relevant!

As I said in the sentences after this that you snipped, it will take
decades before the *first* new power plants are running. It will take
many decades before the thousands of power plants of this scenario are
running. The current 90 year known reserves may only last 30 years
under aggressive building, but the precise need for new uranium will
be known decades in advance. It is then (in plenty of time) that
folks will be willing to commit to spending large sums of money on
exploration and efficiency improvements.

>>The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.
>
> As I noted previously.

When? see point 3 below where you deny addressing this.

>
>>Exactly what "speculation" of mine do you disagree with? That
>>1. There is a lot of uranium out there?
>
> I quibble about economic extraction in useful quantities.
>
>>2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?
>
> Maybe, but I consider it unlikely to matter in this context.

As stated previously (but snipped) current seawater extraction is about
10 times more expensive than mining.

>>3. That the costs of uranium are a small part of the cost of a nuclear
>> plant and have room to rise substantially if the capital costs go down?
>
> I didn't address this one way or the other. The cost of the physical
> plant is irrelevent if you don't have fissile 235U (absent breeders).

Let's look at economics. There will be several sources of additional
reserves, but let's just consider seawater extraction for now.

Going backwards, suppose we allow the total cost of nuclear energy to
increase increase by 10% due completely to the cost of uranium
increasing. How much did uranium go up?

Roughly speaking, the ratio of amortized capital costs vs operating costs
for nuclear is about 9 to 1 (depends *strongly* on interest rates). A 10%
overall increase means that operating costs doubled. According to the
calculations in economic citation I gave earlier, for the best US plants
a 10-fold increase will double the operating cost. Stating it going forwards
(which I probably should have done in the first place but I'm not going
to rewrite), if uranium prices increase by a factor of 10, overall cost per
kWh of nuclear energy will go up by 10%.

Thus seawater extraction of uranium is already in the ballpark of cost
effectiveness if we allow the cost of nuclear power to increase by
10%. And that assumes the capital costs of nuclear power remain
constant. Given the massive expansion of the scenario (thousands of
plants), the capital costs should diminish dramatically; the overall
cost should diminish. And any improvement in seawater extraction
efficiency (point 2 above) will definitely have a direct impact on overall
cost.

> Looking at the costs for Vogtle units 3 and 4, I'm not sanguine
> about the changes for future builds.
>
>>4. That there will be much greater reserves discovered when it is
>> financially worth-while looking for more?
>
> Wishful thinking, if you qualify it with 'economically retrieveable'.
>
> I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'm not sanguine about the probability
> thereof.

I await your response to the analysis above.

I will note that you completely ignored yet another point of mine that
you snipped. The citation that *you* gave and are arguing from takes
the position that the supply of uranium is not a worry at all. It directly
contradicts your thesis and goes into a couple of pages of arguments
against it. You didn't bother to mention that or give any defense against
those arguments (related to my objections, but in greater depth with
much more historical info). Why are these arguments wrong?

Chris

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>> On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>

>
>The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
>day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.

cite? Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States

Worldometer states:
"The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).

EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm

And as you say, expensive.

> The current
>USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
>$45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
>than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
>
>Lynn
>

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/7/2024 8:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:

>> And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
>> if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.
>
>Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
>

Silly idea to waste it that way. In any case, it's not as
easy as you might think to 'throw it into the sun.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/20/this-is-why-we-dont-shoot-earths-garbage-into-the-sun/?sh=6a0a1a05d63e

On 2/8/24 3:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels.   Until
>>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a
>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>> discussion).  To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was
>>>>>>> 17$billion
>>>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>
>>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>>>> planet.
>>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to
>>>> make more
>>>> of what we need.
>>>>
>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to
>>>> 2052.  I
>>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>>    https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>> Lynn! =)
>>
>> He may not appreciate that remark.
>
> I am used to it.  And Lynn is not my first name.
>

But it _is_ Nolan Ryan's first name.[1]
- Tony
[1] I'm assuming your first name is not Nolan, but that would make for
some mildly interesting symmetry.

On 2/8/2024 4:42 PM, Tony Nance wrote:
> On 2/8/24 3:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels.   Until
>>>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a
>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>> discussion).  To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was
>>>>>>>> 17$billion
>>>>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>>>>> planet.
>>>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to
>>>>> make more
>>>>> of what we need.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to
>>>>> 2052.  I
>>>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>>>    https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>>> Lynn! =)
>>>
>>> He may not appreciate that remark.
>>
>> I am used to it.  And Lynn is not my first name.
>>
>
> But it _is_ Nolan Ryan's first name.[1]
> - Tony
> [1] I'm assuming your first name is not Nolan, but that would make for
> some mildly interesting symmetry.

I did not know that !

Lynn

On 2/8/2024 2:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels.   Until
>>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a
>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>> discussion).  To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was
>>>>>>> 17$billion
>>>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>
>>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>>>> planet.
>>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to
>>>> make more
>>>> of what we need.
>>>>
>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to
>>>> 2052.  I
>>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>>    https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>> Lynn! =)
>>
>> He may not appreciate that remark.
>
> I am used to it.  And Lynn is not my first name.
>
> Lynn
>

Robin?

On 2/8/2024 8:29 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 2:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels.   Until
>>>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a
>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>> discussion).  To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was
>>>>>>>> 17$billion
>>>>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>>>>> planet.
>>>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to
>>>>> make more
>>>>> of what we need.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to
>>>>> 2052.  I
>>>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>>>    https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>>> Lynn! =)
>>>
>>> He may not appreciate that remark.
>>
>> I am used to it.  And Lynn is not my first name.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>
> Robin?

Michael.

Lynn

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>
>>>> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
>>>> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
>>>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
>>>> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
>>>> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
>>>>
>>> You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are experiencing
>>> population crashes and birth rates have been declining world-wide for many
>>> years now.
>>
>> Let me add the anecdote that Hans Rosling of gapminder fame (in the EU
>> atleast, doubt anyone in US has heard about him) has theorized that the
>> population of earth will reach an equilibrium at around 12 billion.
>
> That's an increase of 50% from today. With a corresponding increase
> in global energy consumption. Good luck with that. The horseman
> will likely ride first, if they haven't already started....

I disagree.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>>>> over budget!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>
>>>> No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>> 70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
>>>> inevitiable.
>>>
>>> Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the planet.
>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make more
>>> of what we need.
>>>
>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I
>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>> https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>> Lynn! =)
>
> He may not appreciate that remark.

Haha, true. That's what I get for not being a native english speaker. But
I'm not fragile, so I think I can take the potential wrath of Lynn,
alternatively, I might be lucky and the compliment might get through
although a bit damaged. ;)