We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

Why aren't you talking about the coming water shortages, that are becoming a problem around the world. I'll add a gifted article from WaPo, but there's one that I read in the Times that showed how most of the acquirers in the US are rapidly drying up. Some areas are already experiencing extreme water shortages. So, what is the solution to that problem, regardless if the population increases or decreases in the coming decades?

https://wapo.st/3TK6kye

A growing population and rising temperatures will strain the world’s freshwater supplies over the next 30 years, jeopardizing available water for drinking, bathing and growing food, according to new research.

An analysis of newly released data from the World Resources Institute (WRI) shows that by 2050 an additional billion people will be living in arid areas and regions with high water stress, where at least 40 percent of the renewable water supply is consumed each year. Two-fifths of the world’s population — 3.3 billion people in total — currently live in such areas.


WRI used a global hydrological model to estimate how renewable water sources — such as rivers and lakes, which are replenished through precipitation — might change under future climate change scenarios. According to their analysis, the Middle East and North Africa regions have the highest level of water stress in the world. Climate change is shifting traditional precipitation patterns, making the regions drier and reducing their already scarce water supplies. Population growth and industrial use of water are expected to increase demand.

I agree. We should be talking about water shortages and all the other Earth boundaries that scientists say we have overshot. I write:

The Earth is huge and able to withstand our punches. But, if we stress Earth beyond certain limits, it will have permanent scars. Scientists have established 9 boundaries that they say we cannot cross if we expect to maintain that stable Holocene environment. Katherine Richardson and others have made the case that we have already crossed six of those critical boundaries, beyond which “Earth system stability and life-support systems conducive to the human welfare and societal development experienced during the Holocene” are at risk (Richardson, 2023). These boundaries we have already crossed include loss of animal species and their biological function, climate change, freshwater resource change, synthetic chemical pollution, fertilizer runoff, and loss of natural lands. This is cause for concern (Wiedmann, 2020). -- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/

 

[bilby]

Desalination plants can turn seawater into drinkable fresh water at a similar cost to that of turning fresh river water into drinkable fresh water (about 40¢/cubic metre).

Water isn't a problem, if you have access to abundant cheap energy, and live within a hundred km or so of a coastline or river (most people live near water). If energy is sufficiently cheap, you can pump water to anywhere where you want it but don't have it.

All environmental "problems" boil down to getting abundant cheap energy, from technologies with a 100% managed and controlled wastestream. Once you have that, you can remediate, repair, recycle, and replace anything you need, from fresh water to atmospheric carbon.

Right now, there's one technology that produces abundant cheap energy, while having a wastestream that is sufficiently small and sufficiently controlled as to be 100% harmless to the environment.

Can you guess which technology I am referring to?

It begins with an "N".

And it's the one whose wastestream "environmentalists" scream the loudest about, despite nobody ever having been hurt by its waste products, which just sit in neat rows of containers next to the facilities that produced them, harming nobody and nothing.

And the one that has been deliberately and needlessly made as expensive as possible, in a desparate attempt to eliminate it from use.

We don't have a population problem; We have an irrationality problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Note that it did not take long to fill low Earth orbit space with junk.

 

[Elixir]

Note that it did not take long to fill low Earth orbit space with junk.

I used to be fascinated to spot a satellite, now I cuss at them. Thick as flies they are, especially in the polar orbit. Maybe it’s just that our longitude is close to Cheyenne Mountain and everybody has to have eyes/ears on that?

 

[Merle]

So how do you justify claiming that nuclear power plants require fossil fuels for their construction?

I don't know who you are arguing with, but whoever it is, he certainly isn't saying the same thing I am saying.

If anybody wants to know what I have written, please read this thread or go to https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Meanwhile, Bilby, have fun talking to your imaginary friend!

 

[Merle]

He's looking at heat-driven processes. Which are obviously more efficient when driven directly by heat. Plenty of industrial things aren't heat driven, though.

Ah, good, at least somebody understands what I am saying. I have tried saying this so many ways without getting through. I am glad at least one person understood.

Making the cement, steel, and exotic materials that are the components of a nuclear facility require a lot of high temperature sources. It is much more efficient to get these high termperatures from burning fossil fuels directly.

Yes, but I don't exactly like the idea of doing so. You really want that chemical plant (with the potential to go boom) next to your nuclear plant???

I once worked in a power plant that was next door to a paper mill. It is an excellent combination. Power plants inherently have waste low pressure steam coming off the discharge of the turbine, which results in a big energy loss and inherent inefficiency. But paper mills require high quantities of low pressure steam to run the process. So if you put the power plant next to the paper mill, you can use the waste low pressure steam to make toilet paper. Its a win-win.

And if COVID taught us anything, the first thing that people think about when there are potential supply shortages is what happens if they have no toilet paper.

And you could do that with a nuclear plant, I suppose, if people didn't mind working next door to the nuke..

But if the steam from the reactor leaked into the steam making the toilet paper? Well, I suppose your toilet paper then glows in the dark, saving you electricity to light the bathroom.

Would that be a win-win-win?

 

[bilby]

So how do you justify claiming that nuclear power plants require fossil fuels for their construction?

I don't know who you are arguing with, but whoever it is, he certainly isn't saying the same thing I am saying.

If anybody wants to know what I have written, please read this thread or go to https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Meanwhile, Bilby, have fun talking to your imaginary friend!

This isn't imaginary:

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants.

(My bold).

If you don't want me to argue with stuff you say, don't say it. Particularly when it's nonsense. You don't know lots of things; We, on the other hand, know that there are zero components of a nuclear power plant that cannot be made without fossil fuels; And challenge you to name one, if you can.

This is a discussion board; It's trivially easy to go back and look at what was said, so trying to gaslight people by telling them they're only imagining things that you actually said, isn't going to work.

 

[Merle]

I should add that it makes sense to use the waste steam for low temperature heating. But you can't use the steam to make steel. If the steam in the pipe was so hot that it melted steel, it would melt the pipes it was flowing in.

So if you don't have fossil fuels, and you need to make steel for your next nuclear plant, that will be much more expensive than building a nuclear plant using fossil fuels.

 

[Merle]

So how do you justify claiming that nuclear power plants require fossil fuels for their construction?

I don't know who you are arguing with, but whoever it is, he certainly isn't saying the same thing I am saying.

If anybody wants to know what I have written, please read this thread or go to https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Meanwhile, Bilby, have fun talking to your imaginary friend!

This isn't imaginary:

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants.

(My bold).

If you don't want me to argue with stuff you say, don't say it. Particularly when it's nonsense. You don't know lots of things; We, on the other hand, know that there are zero components of a nuclear power plant that cannot be made without fossil fuels; And challenge you to name one, if you can.

This is a discussion board; It's trivially easy to go back and look at what was said, so trying to gaslight people by telling them they're only imagining things that you actually said, isn't going to work.

We do not know if all the materials of a nuclear plant can even be made without fossil fuels. But as I have said repeatedly, we might be able to. We don't know.

We don't know is not the same thing as "we can't".

That is not the main point The main point is that, even if we can do it, it will cost much more to make new nuclear facilities if we don't have fossil fuels.

 

[bilby]

And you could do that with a nuclear plant, I suppose, if people didn't mind working next door to the nuke..

A population not completely incompetent at risk analysis would have the nuclear plant workers worrying about working next door to a chemical plant.

A nuclear power plant is BY FAR the safest possible neighbour you could have; Particularly in an industrial area.

Chemical plants are insanely dangerous. Remember Bhopal? No, of course you don't. It was the world's worst industrial disaster. But it's largely been forgotten.

Power generation is seriously hazardous too; Remember Banqiao Dam? No, of course you don't. It was the world's worst electricity generation disaster. But it's not widely remembered.

I bet you can name the world's three worst nuclear power disasters though. Although, you probably don't know that only one of those three resulted in any fatalities. And you might well mistakenly include a nuclear weapons facility or a nuclear medicine accident in your list; Lots of people do.

 

[bilby]

I should add that it makes sense to use the waste steam for low temperature heating. But you can't use the steam to make steel. If the steam in the pipe was so hot that it melted steel, it would melt the pipes it was flowing in.

So if you don't have fossil fuels, and you need to make steel for your next nuclear plant, that will be much more expensive than building a nuclear plant using fossil fuels.

Have you already forgotten about electric arc furnaces?

 

[Merle]

So how do you justify claiming that nuclear power plants require fossil fuels for their construction?

I don't know who you are arguing with, but whoever it is, he certainly isn't saying the same thing I am saying.

If anybody wants to know what I have written, please read this thread or go to https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Meanwhile, Bilby, have fun talking to your imaginary friend!

This isn't imaginary:

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants.

(My bold).

If you don't want me to argue with stuff you say, don't say it. Particularly when it's nonsense. You don't know lots of things; We, on the other hand, know that there are zero components of a nuclear power plant that cannot be made without fossil fuels; And challenge you to name one, if you can.

This is a discussion board; It's trivially easy to go back and look at what was said, so trying to gaslight people by telling them they're only imagining things that you actually said, isn't going to work.

The post you are quoting said:

Uh, what percent of fossil fuels would be saved with this method?

You are talking about using nuclear to make electricity, which is only about 1/5 of our total energy. And even in that niche which is especially suited for fossil fuels, we find the need for government subsidies to keep nuclear running. (Clifford, 2022). Much of our fossil fuels are used directly in high temperature industrial applications, where the direct use of fossil fuels is far more efficient than using electric. If nuclear can't fulfill its own niche without subsidies, how would it survive if we relied on it for everything?

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants. If we use electric instead of gas for the ovens to make the components, nuclear plants will surely be much more expensive.

And our critical fertilizer supplies come direct from natural gas. To make this from nuclear will be far more expensive.

Fossil fuels will probably be gone in 200 years. And it is doubtful we could ever afford to use nuclear for most industrial ovens or for making things like fertilizer, medicines, and pesticides that we now make from fossil fuels. When we get to that point, the case can be made that we cannot expect to have more than 2 billion people living on Earth with any acceptable degree of comfort. And if we needed to get there in 200 years, then the time to reduce births would be now.

I agree that the sentence, "One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant." should have said , ""One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant.". My mistake.

I have been repeatedly talking about using non-fossil fuel energy for heating applications throughout this thread. When you insist I am not saying that, even though I am saying it very loudly, all you are doing is wasting everybody's time.

 

[bilby]

We do not know if all the materials of a nuclear plant can even be made without fossil fuels. But as I have said repeatedly, we might be able to. We don't know.

YOU might not know. Don't ascribe your abject ignorance to everyone else, though.

 

[Merle]

I should add that it makes sense to use the waste steam for low temperature heating. But you can't use the steam to make steel. If the steam in the pipe was so hot that it melted steel, it would melt the pipes it was flowing in.

So if you don't have fossil fuels, and you need to make steel for your next nuclear plant, that will be much more expensive than building a nuclear plant using fossil fuels.

Have you already forgotten about electric arc furnaces?

Nope. I have provided several links that talk about electric arc furnaces.

Can we please move on? You are wasting everybody's time trying to convince everybody I am saying something completely different from what I am saying. How can that have any value?

 

[bilby]

So how do you justify claiming that nuclear power plants require fossil fuels for their construction?

I don't know who you are arguing with, but whoever it is, he certainly isn't saying the same thing I am saying.

If anybody wants to know what I have written, please read this thread or go to https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Meanwhile, Bilby, have fun talking to your imaginary friend!

This isn't imaginary:

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants.

(My bold).

If you don't want me to argue with stuff you say, don't say it. Particularly when it's nonsense. You don't know lots of things; We, on the other hand, know that there are zero components of a nuclear power plant that cannot be made without fossil fuels; And challenge you to name one, if you can.

This is a discussion board; It's trivially easy to go back and look at what was said, so trying to gaslight people by telling them they're only imagining things that you actually said, isn't going to work.

The post you are quoting said:

Uh, what percent of fossil fuels would be saved with this method?

You are talking about using nuclear to make electricity, which is only about 1/5 of our total energy. And even in that niche which is especially suited for fossil fuels, we find the need for government subsidies to keep nuclear running. (Clifford, 2022). Much of our fossil fuels are used directly in high temperature industrial applications, where the direct use of fossil fuels is far more efficient than using electric. If nuclear can't fulfill its own niche without subsidies, how would it survive if we relied on it for everything?

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants. If we use electric instead of gas for the ovens to make the components, nuclear plants will surely be much more expensive.

And our critical fertilizer supplies come direct from natural gas. To make this from nuclear will be far more expensive.

Fossil fuels will probably be gone in 200 years. And it is doubtful we could ever afford to use nuclear for most industrial ovens or for making things like fertilizer, medicines, and pesticides that we now make from fossil fuels. When we get to that point, the case can be made that we cannot expect to have more than 2 billion people living on Earth with any acceptable degree of comfort. And if we needed to get there in 200 years, then the time to reduce births would be now.

I agree that the sentence, "One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant." should have said , ""One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant.". My mistake.

I have been repeatedly talking about using non-fossil fuel energy for heating applications throughout this thread. When you insist I am not saying that, even though I am saying it very loudly, all you are doing is wasting everybody's time.

One estimate says Donald Trump won the 2020 US Presidential election.

I frankly don't care about such rumors.

Electricity can (and does) provide process heat economically to industrial facilities of all kinds.

 

[bilby]

I should add that it makes sense to use the waste steam for low temperature heating. But you can't use the steam to make steel. If the steam in the pipe was so hot that it melted steel, it would melt the pipes it was flowing in.

So if you don't have fossil fuels, and you need to make steel for your next nuclear plant, that will be much more expensive than building a nuclear plant using fossil fuels.

Have you already forgotten about electric arc furnaces?

Nope. I have provided several links that talk about electric arc furnaces.

Can we please move on? You are wasting everybody's time trying to convince everybody I am saying something completely different from what I am saying. How can that have any value?

You're gaslighting again.

What you are saying is there for all to see; I even quoted it back to you.

If you are saying things that you don't actually mean, then it's not me who is wasting everybody's time here.

 

[Merle]

You're gaslighting again.

What you are saying is there for all to see; I even quoted it back to you.

If you are saying things that you don't actually mean, then it's not me who is wasting everybody's time here.

No sir. I am doing my best to be as clear as possible. If I make a mistake in one word in a post 10 pages back, and readily admit it when it is pointed back to me, that should be the end of it. Instead I need to face endless posts accusing me of gaslighting and wasting people's time.

I am doing my best to write clearly, but as everybody knows, this is not formal writing, and we sometimes make a mistake. When that happens, we should accept the clarification and move on. The context of all my other posts make it very clear that I was not trying to say what you claim. but you ignore all that, and blame me for deliberately gaslighting.

That's ridiculous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know that we are using up resources that we can't replace

Not really. We are using up Helium; Apart from that, we're just spreading resources around in ways that will require lots of cheap energy to reverse.

We aren't "using up" anything - it's all still here, apart from that Helium.

But what's dispersed through the environment is too diffuse for current tech to recover it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, but I don't exactly like the idea of doing so. You really want that chemical plant (with the potential to go boom) next to your nuclear plant???

Sure, why not? A nuclear plant is very tough indeed, and will stand up to almost any external threat. It's essentially a big block of metal, wrapped in a very big block of reinforced concrete.

And of course, we shouldn't be building chemical plants with inadequate safety and containment systems. It's not the nineteenth century anymore.

I'm not picturing breaking the dome. Rather, I'm worried about the blast damaging things inside--doesn't have to break the dome or the reactor vessel. Tear up enough cooling stuff and the reactor is going to Fukushima.

And the reality is there are going to be accidents. We can reduce them, we can't eliminate them. Especially since the sort of reactions that could be driven off waste heat from a reactor tend to involve combustible chemicals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

4) Shielding (it's just a big pile of rocks. We stick those rocks together, to stop them from moving; That's called "concrete". The Romans used it to build loads of stuff, including the Collosseum Colosseum, and they didn't need a single piece of fossil fuel burning equipment to do so).

<nitpick>
The Romans would have used some fossil fuels to build the Colosseum
1. Lime for mortar Roman lime burning
2. Cooking of some food for slaves, free workers, soldiers etc.
3. The metal used in the construction would have been forged using fossil fuel

Granted nowhere near the proportion of fossil fuel used by them compared to what we would use
</nitpick>

Wood. I don't believe they used any fossil fuel.

relases carbon though

Yes, but it would be reclaimed if the tree grew again.

We saw that when diseases swept the New World--areas were reclaimed by nature and global CO2 dropped.