Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>On 13/02/2023 00:02, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Right now, the EROI for U from seawater is significantly less
>> than unity. Not a viable option.
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
>>
>> That's 200 years worth for the existing fleet of 439 reactors.
>>
>> Now multiply that by the tens of thousands of reactors that
>> need to be built to replace the fossil fuel based energy.
>
>Very interesting link, thank you. I especially like the last sentence:
>
>"Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years
>using only the NEA-estimated supplies."

"Today's nuclear output for 30,000 years", when you add 30,000 new
reactors, does that drop to 1 year?

One must also consider:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>> pulling a load.
>
> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?

What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}

I drove a Land rover for years as part of my job, and only sold it because
the drivers seat could not be adjusted. A Defender with an Austrian 5 cylinder
engine. Anything else was only a ponce wagen
>
> By the time it's been through a hybrid transmission the torque
> characteristics of the engine don't matter a damn.
>
> Come to that I've had petrol cars with towbars that would quite happily
> spin their drive wheels...

Memories of a mate who had a mate that was so fat that he had to sit in
front or back to stop the wheels spinning
>
> The legend of torque and towing is just that. A legend. And like many
> others it has no basis in fact.
>
> Andy

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 19:02:19 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> "Today's nuclear output for 30,000 years", when you add 30,000 new
> reactors, does that drop to 1 year?

As we have 439 reactors currently I presume that gives us 439 years
until we have to find a sustainable solution or take the 90% population hit.

Of course there remains the problem of NIMBY^30000 which is likely
insurmountable especially when added to the detail that breeder reactors
are weapons technology which in widespread use would make weapons grade
fissionable material widely available which will add NITBY to NIMBY.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 19:02:19 GMT
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> "Today's nuclear output for 30,000 years", when you add 30,000 new
>> reactors, does that drop to 1 year?
>
> As we have 439 reactors currently I presume that gives us 439 years
>until we have to find a sustainable solution or take the 90% population hit.

Those 439 reactors produce about 400 GW of electricity. The world
currently consumes 20 TW of electricity . To replace fossil fuels
(absent renwables for argument sake) with nuclear, would require
19,600 additional reactors (at 1GW each); and given the
amount of time necessary to build such a large fleet, by the time
it is complete worldwide consumption will have increased by 50%
at current 2.3% annual growth rate, so closer to 30,000 new 1GW
plants would be necessary.

>
> Of course there remains the problem of NIMBY^30000 which is likely
>insurmountable especially when added to the detail that breeder reactors
>are weapons technology which in widespread use would make weapons grade
>fissionable material widely available which will add NITBY to NIMBY.

Fundamentally, we cannot continue to grow energy consumption by 2.3%
annually for much longer. And given that capitalism requires annual
growth, in its modern incarnation, the global economy must transition from
growth-based to steady-state. That's gonna be hard.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:40:56 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> Those 439 reactors produce about 400 GW of electricity. The world
> currently consumes 20 TW of electricity . To replace fossil fuels
> (absent renwables for argument sake) with nuclear, would require
> 19,600 additional reactors (at 1GW each); and given the
> amount of time necessary to build such a large fleet, by the time
> it is complete worldwide consumption will have increased by 50%
> at current 2.3% annual growth rate, so closer to 30,000 new 1GW
> plants would be necessar

Yes that's the basis behind saying that if we have the fuel to run
those 439 for 30k years (claimed for breeder reactors upthread) then we have
the fuel to run 30K reactors for 439 years and then we need a real
solution15

Personally I think we have a better chance of building the 100K or
so million litre flow batteries that we'd need to run everything off
intermittent sources.

> Fundamentally, we cannot continue to grow energy consumption by 2.3%
> annually for much longer.

True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
can we sustain and what can we do with it.

> And given that capitalism requires annual
> growth, in its modern incarnation, the global economy must transition from
> growth-based to steady-state. That's gonna be hard.

Yes it is, but that growth is only essential so that the money
manipulators can cream off their cut for doing nothing productive.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>> pulling a load.
>>
>> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>
> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>
In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
<snip>

Andy

On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
> can we sustain and what can we do with it.

It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.

In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
It's now over 6, and still growing.

If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:

> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.

8 now, isn't it?

> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.

Still twice as many births every day compared to deaths ...

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:40:56 GMT
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> Those 439 reactors produce about 400 GW of electricity. The world
>> currently consumes 20 TW of electricity . To replace fossil fuels
>> (absent renwables for argument sake) with nuclear, would require
>> 19,600 additional reactors (at 1GW each); and given the
>> amount of time necessary to build such a large fleet, by the time
>> it is complete worldwide consumption will have increased by 50%
>> at current 2.3% annual growth rate, so closer to 30,000 new 1GW
>> plants would be necessar
>
> Yes that's the basis behind saying that if we have the fuel to run
>those 439 for 30k years (claimed for breeder reactors upthread) then we have
>the fuel to run 30K reactors for 439 years and then we need a real
>solution15
>
> Personally I think we have a better chance of building the 100K or
>so million litre flow batteries that we'd need to run everything off
>intermittent sources.
>
>> Fundamentally, we cannot continue to grow energy consumption by 2.3%
>> annually for much longer.
>
> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
>> And given that capitalism requires annual
>> growth, in its modern incarnation, the global economy must transition from
>> growth-based to steady-state. That's gonna be hard.
>
> Yes it is, but that growth is only essential so that the money
>manipulators can cream off their cut for doing nothing productive.

Yes, and they're the ones who write the rules, sadly.

https://prospect.org/power/mapping-corruption-donald-trump-executive-branch/

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
>It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
>In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>It's now over 6, and still growing.

You're behind the times. It reached seven billion last year.

>
>If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.

The horsemen will need ride again, it seems.

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>> pulling a load.
>>>
>>> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>
>> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>
>In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
><snip>

We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
appear to be universal.

On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.

No, It's not. In certain ethnic groups, it's actually falling quite
rapidly. China is Falling, Iran is Falling, ethnic Russia its falling
Nigeria is is rising rapidly. Citizization (new word) is growing, and
anyone touring rural France, Scotland and Ireland can see it happenin.
>
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.

Most Industry will be in Asia in a very few years. The West is comitting
hari-kiri, led by bufoons.
>
> Andy

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

On 2023-02-16, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
> 8 now, isn't it?
>
>> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>
> Still twice as many births every day compared to deaths ...
surely that should be ^debts^

All that nonsense is derived from Nazi Propogands, derived
from US medical thought from the 1930's

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
>It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
>In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
>If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.

8 billion, recent figures.
--
Jim

On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>>> pulling a load.
>>>>
>>>> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>>
>>> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>>
>>In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
>><snip>
>
> We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
> 1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
> appear to be universal.

Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
be stopped by 2030. Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
>On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>
>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>
>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
>No, It's not.

Well, it is over 6. Currently 7.9 billion, so pushing eight

And it's still growing in the world. Some countries (Japan
springs to mind) are decreasing. And the growth rate is
decreasing worldwide, but it's still growing.

The expectation is we'll reach 9 before it starts declining.

maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
>On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>
>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>
>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
>No, It's not.

https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100

On 2023-02-16, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
><vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>
>>It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>
>>In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>
>>If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>
> 8 billion, recent figures.

yes, American 'billions'

On 2023-02-16, maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>>>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>>>> pulling a load.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>>>
>>>> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>>>
>>>In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
>>><snip>
>>
>> We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
>> 1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
>> appear to be universal.
>
>
> Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
> I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
> be stopped by 2030. Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
>
>

Quite so: we have plenty here in the UK too.
Thankfully the Prime Idiot of Scotland is abandoning her post.

johnson <root@example.net> writes:
>On 2023-02-16, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
>><vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>
>>>It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>
>>>In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>>It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>>
>>>If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>>
>> 8 billion, recent figures.
>
>yes, American 'billions'

It's my understanding that even the British have accepted the
American definition of billion at this point in time.

https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/budget/how-much-is-a-billion.html

On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
>>On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>
>>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>
>>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>
>>No, It's not.
>
> Well, it is over 6. Currently 7.9 billion, so pushing eight

One could agree about that. How does anyone know how many there is?.
Who counts the counters? Japan, I suppose, is a pointer, reportedly
boys spend most of their time in their rooms, looking at games and
porn. Also the highest use of adult nappies. There may a correlation
between adult nappies and condoms :):)

The girls spend most of their time on smartphones. I don't know any
way of becoming pregnant by smart phone (The mind boggles). It may
be on alt.risks.

>
> And it's still growing in the world. Some countries (Japan
> springs to mind) are decreasing. And the growth rate is
> decreasing worldwide, but it's still growing.
>
> The expectation is we'll reach 9 before it starts declining.

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
>>On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>
>>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>
>>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>
>>No, It's not.
>
> https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100
>
>

I think one could safely ignore any web address with `un' on it.

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

On 2023-02-16, johnson <root@example.net> wrote:
> On 2023-02-16, maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>>>>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>>>>> pulling a load.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>>>>
>>>>In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>> We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
>>> 1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
>>> appear to be universal.
>>
>>
>> Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
>> I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
>> be stopped by 2030. Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
>>
>>
>
> Quite so: we have plenty here in the UK too.
> Thankfully the Prime Idiot of Scotland is abandoning her post.

I will have to find a Scots politician with a fishy based name

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.

But, God forbid that the birthrate drops below replacement level! Then the
seals will be opened and the four horsemen ride out.

--
Pete

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> johnson <root@example.net> writes:
>> On 2023-02-16, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
>>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>>
>>>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>>
>>>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>>>
>>>> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>>>
>>> 8 billion, recent figures.
>>
>> yes, American 'billions'
>
> It's my understanding that even the British have accepted the
> American definition of billion at this point in time.
>
> https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/budget/how-much-is-a-billion.html
>

It’s even worse if Google shows you an article from an Indian paper where
they talk about krors of lakhs. Or is that lakhs of krors?

--
Pete