Global Warming According to Exxon

[other1]

A Fresh Reading Of Exxon’s Predictions Of Global Warming And Climate Change From 40 Years Ago.

Exxon predicted global warming and got this right. They also said climate changes are less predictable, and that is right too, despite criticism that they cast doubt on climate science.

www.forbes.com

 

[SDTiger9]

It’s math and science and nothing else.

 

[ReserveTiger]

 

[DW4_2016]

exxon accurately predicts we're on the way to the end of this planet and that's apparently a good thing. only someone who could believe in fantasy jesus can make a leap like that. impressive guys!

 

[southerncaltiger]

CCS…ha ha ha. Yeah, that’ll save us.

 

[leetp]

A Fresh Reading Of Exxon’s Predictions Of Global Warming And Climate Change From 40 Years Ago.

Exxon predicted global warming and got this right. They also said climate changes are less predictable, and that is right too, despite criticism that they cast doubt on climate science.

www.forbes.com

But wait, seriously, why DOESN'T this study create doubt about the current climate debate? They were perhaps the only ones to accurately predict CO2 levels and rate of apparent warming....so why did no one else? 450 ppm CO2 and 1 degree warming? Given that we mostly understand the relationship between CO2 and temp to be logarithmic, CO2 will have to reach 800 ppm before we get another degree increase. Talk about a nothing burger.

Furthermore, there has been no apparent affect from the 1 degree increase--so what should Exxon have done?

Also, the Earth is technically in an ice age. It is supposed to warm. As it warms, more dissolved CO2 is released from the oceans. The cycle happens irrespective of human involvement. While humans might well be able to nudge it slightly one way or the other in between the extremes, we are powerless to affect these cycles. The Earth will warm, the icecaps will melt, and we will adapt along the way--until the Earth becomes inhospitable. And when that happens, I feel certain fossil fuels will have had nothing to do with it, nor will it have added or subtracted one second from human existence on this planet.

One thing is for certain, however: fossil fuels have most definitely made our lives on this planet better and have added countless years to our lives.

Having said that, I am all for polluting less and replacing coal and other fossil fuels in powerplants. We just don't seem willing to do so.

 

[southerncaltiger]

“Having said that, I am all for polluting less and replacing coal and other fossil fuels in powerplants. We just don't seem willing to do so.”

Please define your use of “We”. We as the human race or “we” as the U.S.?

I ask, because if it’s the latter, I’m not sure you’re well informed about how the fuel mixture for power generation has changed over the last decade.

 

[leetp]

“Having said that, I am all for polluting less and replacing coal and other fossil fuels in powerplants. We just don't seem willing to do so.”

Please define your use of “We”. We as the human race or “we” as the U.S.?

I ask, because if it’s the latter, I’m not sure you’re well informed about how the fuel mixture for power generation has changed over the last decade.

I mean 'we' as Americans. And so far as our apparent unwillingness, I mean that while we have a means to generate extremely clean energy via nuclear power, we refuse to do so.

As far as how well informed I am about fuel mixtures and power generation, I must say I'm not informed at all. Do tell. Are there coal and natural gas fired power plants out there that produce little or no CO2 or otherwise undesirable emissions? In full disclosure, I'm not so sure I place CO2 in the undesirable emissions category. My present running hypothesis is the human race benefits greatly by CO2 levels above 350 parts per million or more, but I digress. I'll save that for another thread.

 

[PAWrocka]

But wait, seriously, why DOESN'T this study create doubt about the current climate debate? They were perhaps the only ones to accurately predict CO2 levels and rate is apparent warming....so why did no one else? 450 ppm CO2 and 1 degree warming? Given that we mostly understand the relationship between CO2 and temp to be logarithmic, CO2 will have to reach 800 ppm before we get another degree increase. Talk about a nothing burger.

Furthermore, there has been no apparent affect from the 1 degree increase--so what should Exxon have done?

Also, the Earth is technically in an ice age. It is supposed to warm. As it warms, more dissolved CO2 is released from the oceans. The cycle happens irrespective of human involvement. While humans might well be able to nudge it slightly one way or the other in between the extremes, we are powerless to affect these cycles. The Earth will warm, the icecaps will melt, and we will adapt along the way--until the Earth becomes inhospitable. And when that happens, I feel certain fossil fuels will have had nothing to do with it, nor will it have added or subtracted one second from human existence on this planet.

One thing is for certain, however: fossil fuels have most definitely made our lives on this planet better and have added countless years to our lives.

Having said that, I am all for polluting less and replacing coal and other fossil fuels in powerplants. We just don't seem willing to do so.

I do think "we" are doing so if the "we" you are referencing is the "west" (EU, Britain, the United States, Canada, Etc). The Wests CO2 emissions have dropped off a cliff since the early 90s and continue to fall; however, in the East specifically India and China their emissions have sky rocketed.

Currently the East's (Britain, US, EU, Canada) emissions account for approximately 31% of all CO2 emissions; meanwhile, China alone accounts for 28%. Right now China and India are building new coal fire power plants at a rate of 1 a month between now and 2030. Sooooooooooo why arent we talking about the worst offenders contributing to climate change? Why arent there global treaties and agreements holding the Chinese accountable? Why arent there activists in the streets of Beijing? and ... why arent all these companies who manufacture their goods in China, pulling their plants out of the country?

Ive said it before, Im all for doing what we can to be better stewards of our planet ... I mean God did task us with that, it was like the second thing he told us to do ... but lets hold the actual offenders accountable. Anything less than that is just empty vapid virtue signaling

 

[southerncaltiger]

I mean 'we' as Americans. And so far as our apparent unwillingness, I mean that while we have a means to generate extremely clean energy via nuclear power, we refuse to do so.

As far as how well informed I am about fuel mixtures and power generation, I must say I'm not informed at all. Do tell. Are there coal and natural gas fired power plants out there that produce little or no CO2 or otherwise undesirable emissions? In full disclosure, I'm not so sure I place CO2 in the undesirable emissions category. My present running hypothesis is the human race benefits greatly by CO2 levels above 350 parts per million or more, but I digress. I'll save that for another thread.

I appreciate the sincerity of your inquiry. I work in the environmental policy space for a major electric utility and I'm a geologist my technical background is geology (I'm not a licensed geologist any more), so it's a little easier for me.

Not to argue, but I'd pump the brakes a bit on tabbing nuclear as "...extremely clean energy..." we still have a huge issue around the spent fuel and what to do with it. As someone who has given tours where we walk right over top of millions of pounds of the stuff, sitting a tsunami wall away from the Pacific Ocean, I know first hand. Also, take a look at a map of where most of the US Nuclear Power Plants are...not all of that is due to "well, that's where the population centers are...". The arid West isn't exactly a great place to locate nukes, unless you can tap into that huge heat sink, known as the Pacific Ocean. In California, you can't do that any more.

Here's website that you may not be familiar with...has a lot of great info.

EIA

Here's a glimpse of how the fuel mixture as changed from 2011 to 2021. As you can see, coal has been cut roughly in half. @PAWrocka is correct...what are you going to do about other nations that want to use coal? Who the hell is going to tell China to stop building coal plants? Uncle Joe? You? Me?

Click Here

 

[leetp]

I appreciate the sincerity of your inquiry. I work in the environmental policy space for a major electric utility and I'm a geologist my technical background is geology (I'm not a licensed geologist any more), so it's a little easier for me.

Not to argue, but I'd pump the brakes a bit on tabbing nuclear as "...extremely clean energy..." we still have a huge issue around the spent fuel and what to do with it. As someone who has given tours where we walk right over top of millions of pounds of the stuff, sitting a tsunami wall away from the Pacific Ocean, I know first hand. Also, take a look at a map of where most of the US Nuclear Power Plants are...not all of that is due to "well, that's where the population centers are...". The arid West isn't exactly a great place to locate nukes, unless you can tap into that huge heat sink, known as the Pacific Ocean. In California, you can't do that any more.

Here's website that you may not be familiar with...has a lot of great info.

EIA

Here's a glimpse of how the fuel mixture as changed from 2011 to 2021. As you can see, coal has been cut roughly in half. @PAWrocka is correct...what are you going to do about other nations that want to use coal? Who the hell is going to tell China to stop building coal plants? Uncle Joe? You? Me?

Click Here

I participate in these boards to test my hypotheses and to learn from others. So I am always eager glean more or new information. I'll be sure to check out those references you provided.

As for nuke power, I only mean to say the power nuclear energy gives off is "clean" (though clean, like "green", is a rather ridiculous term in this context, IMO). Spent fuel is an issue, but I dare say easier to tackle. Cooling a reactor, as you allude to, make nuke powerplants impractical in some areas as you rightly point out. I did not mean to imply it it should be our sole source for electric power and, as I did explicitly state, I am not anti-CO2, per se.

 

[leetp]

I do think "we" are doing so if the "we" you are referencing is the "west" (EU, Britain, the United States, Canada, Etc). The Wests CO2 emissions have dropped off a cliff since the early 90s and continue to fall; however, in the East specifically India and China their emissions have sky rocketed.

Currently the East's (Britain, US, EU, Canada) emissions account for approximately 31% of all CO2 emissions; meanwhile, China alone accounts for 28%. Right now China and India are building new coal fire power plants at a rate of 1 a month between now and 2030. Sooooooooooo why arent we talking about the worst offenders contributing to climate change? Why arent there global treaties and agreements holding the Chinese accountable? Why arent there activists in the streets of Beijing? and ... why arent all these companies who manufacture their goods in China, pulling their plants out of the country?

Ive said it before, Im all for doing what we can to be better stewards of our planet ... I mean God did task us with that, it was like the second thing he told us to do ... but lets hold the actual offenders accountable. Anything less than that is just empty vapid virtue signaling

I don't disagree with your points, but the "we" I was referring to is the US. Of course as you point out, in the context of China and India, any effort from us at all in this area is wasted at best--although more likely highly destructive (to our economy) and counterproductive (as we increasingly rely on China and India, thereby intensifying their energy demands).

 

[PAWrocka]

I don't disagree with your points, but the "we" I was referring to is the US. Of course as you point out, in the context of China and India, any effort from us at all in this area is wasted at best--although more likely highly destructive (to our economy) and counterproductive (as we increasingly rely on China and India, thereby intensifying their energy demands).

I don’t necessarily believe that the effort is wasted, because like I said … it is our duty to be good stewards to the world God provided to us. Additionally, Earth is our only home … no matter which direction you look, it sucks for trillions of miles.

I also want to see us get off fossil fuels, because I would just love to tell the Saudis and OPEC to F* off.

But yes … to me, all these climate initiatives, slogans, campaigns, regulations, treaties, accords, all ring hollow … until someone or some body calls Xi onto the carpet, holds the Chinese accountable for shitting into the air … it’s all virtue signaling bullshit.

 

[leetp]

I appreciate the sincerity of your inquiry. I work in the environmental policy space for a major electric utility and I'm a geologist my technical background is geology (I'm not a licensed geologist any more), so it's a little easier for me.

Not to argue, but I'd pump the brakes a bit on tabbing nuclear as "...extremely clean energy..." we still have a huge issue around the spent fuel and what to do with it. As someone who has given tours where we walk right over top of millions of pounds of the stuff, sitting a tsunami wall away from the Pacific Ocean, I know first hand. Also, take a look at a map of where most of the US Nuclear Power Plants are...not all of that is due to "well, that's where the population centers are...". The arid West isn't exactly a great place to locate nukes, unless you can tap into that huge heat sink, known as the Pacific Ocean. In California, you can't do that any more.

Here's website that you may not be familiar with...has a lot of great info.

EIA

Here's a glimpse of how the fuel mixture as changed from 2011 to 2021. As you can see, coal has been cut roughly in half. @PAWrocka is correct...what are you going to do about other nations that want to use coal? Who the hell is going to tell China to stop building coal plants? Uncle Joe? You? Me?

Click Here

I took a minute to pull the thread on a couple of your references.

First, on eia.gov. I know the site well and I reference it a lot.

Second, when you mentioned fuel mixtures, I thought you were actually talking about fuel formulation....not how much natural gas has replaced coal as a fuel source. I was largely aware of that, but it's a salient point as it does undermine my assertion that we, the US, are not replacing coal--but note that I said coal and other fossil fuels. Nevertheless, natural gas does emit roughly 50% less CO2...so I'll back off my assertion.

Third, according to energy.gov, we have produced about 90,000 tons (180 million pounds) of nuclear waste since the 1950s. It may seem like a lot, but if it were a cube it would fit inside of a space less than a 1/10 of an acre (54 sq ft, stacked 54 ft high) (calculated using depleted uranium @ .69 lb/cu in)

 

[southerncaltiger]

I took a minute to pull the thread on a couple of your references.

First, on eia.gov. I know the site well and I reference it a lot.

Second, when you mentioned fuel mixtures, I thought you were actually talking about fuel formulation....not how much natural gas has replaced coal as a fuel source. I was largely aware of that, but it's a salient point as it does undermine my assertion that we, the US, are not replacing coal--but note that I said coal and other fossil fuels. Nevertheless, natural gas does emit roughly 50% less CO2...so I'll back off my assertion.

Third, according to energy.gov, we have produced about 90,000 tons (180 million pounds) of nuclear waste since the 1950s. It may seem like a lot, but if it were a cube it would fit inside of a space less than a 1/10 of an acre (54 sq ft, stacked 54 ft high) (calculated using depleted uranium @ .69 lb/cu in)

You touched on one the things activists always point to…pounds/tons. I prefer to look at volumes as a more accurate measure of “how much?”.
By comparison, a large 4-unit coal plant can generate about 900,000 cubic yards of coal combustion residuals…in a year. You can ask TVA or Duke about dikes, ash ponds & how difficult it is to find room for that much waste…

 

[WapPride]

I do think "we" are doing so if the "we" you are referencing is the "west" (EU, Britain, the United States, Canada, Etc). The Wests CO2 emissions have dropped off a cliff since the early 90s and continue to fall; however, in the East specifically India and China their emissions have sky rocketed.

Currently the East's (Britain, US, EU, Canada) emissions account for approximately 31% of all CO2 emissions; meanwhile, China alone accounts for 28%. Right now China and India are building new coal fire power plants at a rate of 1 a month between now and 2030. Sooooooooooo why arent we talking about the worst offenders contributing to climate change? Why arent there global treaties and agreements holding the Chinese accountable? Why arent there activists in the streets of Beijing? and ... why arent all these companies who manufacture their goods in China, pulling their plants out of the country?

Ive said it before, Im all for doing what we can to be better stewards of our planet ... I mean God did task us with that, it was like the second thing he told us to do ... but lets hold the actual offenders accountable. Anything less than that is just empty vapid virtue signaling

China's also transitioning to more nuclear plants as well. Not to diminish their current carbon footprint and the problem with them creating more coal plants, but they are doing more to transition to nuclear power vs solely coal power.

China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout

China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[WapPride]

I appreciate the sincerity of your inquiry. I work in the environmental policy space for a major electric utility and I'm a geologist my technical background is geology (I'm not a licensed geologist any more), so it's a little easier for me.

Not to argue, but I'd pump the brakes a bit on tabbing nuclear as "...extremely clean energy..." we still have a huge issue around the spent fuel and what to do with it. As someone who has given tours where we walk right over top of millions of pounds of the stuff, sitting a tsunami wall away from the Pacific Ocean, I know first hand. Also, take a look at a map of where most of the US Nuclear Power Plants are...not all of that is due to "well, that's where the population centers are...". The arid West isn't exactly a great place to locate nukes, unless you can tap into that huge heat sink, known as the Pacific Ocean. In California, you can't do that any more.

Here's website that you may not be familiar with...has a lot of great info.

EIA

Here's a glimpse of how the fuel mixture as changed from 2011 to 2021. As you can see, coal has been cut roughly in half. @PAWrocka is correct...what are you going to do about other nations that want to use coal? Who the hell is going to tell China to stop building coal plants? Uncle Joe? You? Me?

Click Here

I don't want to sound like i'm critiquing any of this, but nuclear waste is generated at a fraction of what coal waste is generated. You're right in that nuclear waste isn't extremely clean energy, but when your average coal power plant produces 200k+ tons/year of ash compared to a nuclear plant which produces, what a few 55 gal drums of it per year, then by comparison it is much "cleaner."

The big hurdle, in my opinion, is identifying nuclear waste disposal options, instead of stockpiling it in caverns in Nevada. I know some people have joked that we should fire trash into space for disposal, but honestly it's not a bad idea for nuclear waste. Your typical ship can hold about 20 tons of cargo when it's fired into space, and your typical nuclear plant generates less than a ton of waste/year...it's probably not too farfetched to think that is a viable solution for nuclear waste disposal. At least that's my uneducated opinion on the topic

edit: looks like i should've kept reading before responding - i was way off on my generation figures

 

[Jjh7]

so the private sector is at least 40 years ahead of the us government is what i read here...remind me why the federal govt has oversight of anything and is empowered to confiscate our money with annual tithes again?

 

[southerncaltiger]

"I know some people have joked that we should fire trash into space for disposal, but honestly it's not a bad idea for nuclear waste. Your typical ship can hold about 20 tons of cargo when it's fired into space, and your typical nuclear plant generates less than a ton of waste/year...it's probably not too farfetched to think that is a viable solution for nuclear waste disposal. At least that's my uneducated opinion on the topic."

I'm going to question your "less than a ton/waste per year" comment. Spent fuel and refueling operations generate 20x more than that. Do you have a reference for that?

Here's another maybe not-to-far-fetched idea. You can laser-guide bombs? How about guiding spent-fuel canisters into deep subduction zones? Crazy idea coming from a geologist...put the stuff back into the core where it came from. I still have people ask me if we're moving the fuel to Yucca Mountain (facepalm).

 

[WapPride]

"I know some people have joked that we should fire trash into space for disposal, but honestly it's not a bad idea for nuclear waste. Your typical ship can hold about 20 tons of cargo when it's fired into space, and your typical nuclear plant generates less than a ton of waste/year...it's probably not too farfetched to think that is a viable solution for nuclear waste disposal. At least that's my uneducated opinion on the topic."

I'm going to question your "less than a ton/waste per year" comment. Spent fuel and refueling operations generate 20x more than that. Do you have a reference for that?

Here's another maybe not-to-far-fetched idea. You can laser-guide bombs? How about guiding spent-fuel canisters into deep subduction zones? Crazy idea coming from a geologist...put the stuff back into the core where it came from. I still have people ask me if we're moving the fuel to Yucca Mountain (facepalm).

I just threw that number out there because i read somewhere that only a few metric meters of waste are generated per year per plant. I have no idea the density of the waste, or if that figure is even accurate. like i said, i'm pretty ignorant on this topic so i'd take anything i said with a big grain of salt

What is nuclear waste and what do we do with it? - World Nuclear Association

The small amount of waste produced by nuclear reactors has been managed responsibly since the dawn of civil nuclear power. There are several management strategies available, such as direct disposal or recycling in reactors to generate more low-carbon electricity.

world-nuclear.org

 

[leetp]

"I know some people have joked that we should fire trash into space for disposal, but honestly it's not a bad idea for nuclear waste. Your typical ship can hold about 20 tons of cargo when it's fired into space, and your typical nuclear plant generates less than a ton of waste/year...it's probably not too farfetched to think that is a viable solution for nuclear waste disposal. At least that's my uneducated opinion on the topic."

I'm going to question your "less than a ton/waste per year" comment. Spent fuel and refueling operations generate 20x more than that. Do you have a reference for that?

Here's another maybe not-to-far-fetched idea. You can laser-guide bombs? How about guiding spent-fuel canisters into deep subduction zones? Crazy idea coming from a geologist...put the stuff back into the core where it came from. I still have people ask me if we're moving the fuel to Yucca Mountain (facepalm).

That's been my question...why not bury it exceptionally deep via deep bore wells? Of course we'd be well below the aquifers to eliminate the threat of groundwater contamination.

But the subduction zone angle is an even better idea. Of course, it's likely we'll never reach the mantle by any kind of surface digging, but getting it deep into a subduction plate boundary seems like the ticket. Of course, plates move on "geologic time", but ideal to know that that the waste is headed deeper (i.e. toward the mantle vice the surface).

 

[leetp]

You touched on one the things activists always point to…pounds/tons. I prefer to look at volumes as a more accurate measure of “how much?”.

Indeed... I am hip the game of playing with units and methods of measurements as a means to add shock value. I only used pounds since you mention walking of "millions of pounds" of buried waste. I too rather speak in terms of volume--particularly given the density of depleted uranium....hence why I ultimately converted the "millions of pounds" into cubic feet.

 

[PAWrocka]

China's also transitioning to more nuclear plants as well. Not to diminish their current carbon footprint and the problem with them creating more coal plants, but they are doing more to transition to nuclear power vs solely coal power.

China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout

China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.

www.bloomberg.com

This is like one time when my son was potty training …. He ran to the bathroom pissing all over the floor all the way and then squeezed a drop of pee into the toilet and then wanted a cookie as a reward. Meanwhile my wife and I are looking in horror at a piss covered floor.

F* China

 

[TigerGrowls]

Ok, I repent and surrender to the green new deal. I am ready to be assimilated. LOL!!

 

[southerncaltiger]

I would definitely outfit my truck and SUV with a snorkel if I lived there. For me personally, I’m going to invest in a set of tire chains for next winter, despite having two 4WD vehicles. Gotta adapt…

 

[Willence]

so the private sector is at least 40 years ahead of the us government is what i read here...remind me why the federal govt has oversight of anything and is empowered to confiscate our money with annual tithes again?

The Federal government shouldn't be solving any problems. We do not have the brightest minds there. We have many of our worst people in politics. Reduce the amount of power in government and you instantly improve the quality of people who want to serve in government. It's a win-win for everyone!

We see this evident in our current energy policy. It's full steam ahead for EVs but we don't have the power grid to support that kind of usage. That's not even discussing the part where we aren't honest about the challenges with battery technology and waste. And that's without even admitting the really filthy process of mining the materials to make batteries and where all that comes from. There are some really promising possibilities with hydrogen fuel cells. But this whole battery thing and EVs isn't going to work. It's mostly performative because so much of our politics these days revolves around performance. It's disgusting and incredibly destructive.

 

[Willence]

"I know some people have joked that we should fire trash into space for disposal, but honestly it's not a bad idea for nuclear waste. Your typical ship can hold about 20 tons of cargo when it's fired into space, and your typical nuclear plant generates less than a ton of waste/year...it's probably not too farfetched to think that is a viable solution for nuclear waste disposal. At least that's my uneducated opinion on the topic."

I'm going to question your "less than a ton/waste per year" comment. Spent fuel and refueling operations generate 20x more than that. Do you have a reference for that?

Here's another maybe not-to-far-fetched idea. You can laser-guide bombs? How about guiding spent-fuel canisters into deep subduction zones? Crazy idea coming from a geologist...put the stuff back into the core where it came from. I still have people ask me if we're moving the fuel to Yucca Mountain (facepalm).

We need to be full steam ahead on space industry. There are rocks out there that could supply the mineral needs to the entire planet. We should be aggressively working toward utilizing the vast array of resources floating around us.

 

[leetp]

The Federal government shouldn't be solving any problems. We do not have the brightest minds there. We have many of our worst people in politics. Reduce the amount of power in government and you instantly improve the quality of people who want to serve in government. It's a win-win for everyone!

We see this evident in our current energy policy. It's full steam ahead for EVs but we don't have the power grid to support that kind of usage. That's not even discussing the part where we aren't honest about the challenges with battery technology and waste. And that's without even admitting the really filthy process of mining the materials to make batteries and where all that comes from. There are some really promising possibilities with hydrogen fuel cells. But this whole battery thing and EVs isn't going to work. It's mostly performative because so much of our politics these days revolves around performance. It's disgusting and incredibly destructive.

I work in the federal government...a "scientist" in fact (albeit "computer scientist", but my official title is just "scientist"). I've had the pleasure of working with some of the smartest people I've ever met....but, the really good ones don't stay long and mediocrity (calling it that at times seems generous) abounds. Given that I have been working in government for 25 years, you are free to judge where I fit in on the spectrum.

 

[southerncaltiger]

We need to be full steam ahead on space industry. There are rocks out there that could supply the mineral needs to the entire planet. We should be aggressively working toward utilizing the vast array of resources floating around us.

I don't know that "...there are rocks out there that could supply the mineral needs to the entire planet...", but you know that economics are going to drive that. Sort of similar to why "abandoned" spoil piles at some of the old gold & silver mines out west here have started to disappear. I fly fish in some remote areas. In one place that looks abandoned, I saw removal of Wolframite mining spoils (Tungsten) and it wasn't for environmental benefit. Silver is up about 53% over the past 5 years...some of that worthless mine tailings pile suddenly becomes valuable for reprocessing at $26/oz. Is Palladium spiking? Uh oh, better guard your catalytic converters. LOL.

The moon is the closest "rock" we have and unless Anorthosite becomes exceedingly rare on Earth, we aren't going to be mining the moon anytime soon. Besides, that was one of the first things that the space program looked at. One of my long-since retired Profs at Clemson was part of a team that examined the mineral resources.

I agree with your first statement though, the population growth issues and depletion/degradation of this planet pretty much will require us to colonize other worlds.

 

[WapPride]

We need to be full steam ahead on space industry. There are rocks out there that could supply the mineral needs to the entire planet. We should be aggressively working toward utilizing the vast array of resources floating around us.

100% this
edit: idk about the mineral needs, but space exploration and colonization seems like such a no brainer that it baffles me why more money isn't thrown at it. whoever unlocks that genie is going to be a ****ing gazillionaire

 

[Willence]

I don't know that "...there are rocks out there that could supply the mineral needs to the entire planet...", but you know that economics are going to drive that. Sort of similar to why "abandoned" spoil piles at some of the old gold & silver mines out west here have started to disappear. I fly fish in some remote areas. In one place that looks abandoned, I saw removal of Wolframite mining spoils (Tungsten) and it wasn't for environmental benefit. Silver is up about 53% over the past 5 years...some of that worthless mine tailings pile suddenly becomes valuable for reprocessing at $26/oz. Is Palladium spiking? Uh oh, better guard your catalytic converters. LOL.

The moon is the closest "rock" we have and unless Anorthosite becomes exceedingly rare on Earth, we aren't going to be mining the moon anytime soon. Besides, that was one of the first things that the space program looked at. One of my long-since retired Profs at Clemson was part of a team that examined the mineral resources.

I agree with your first statement though, the population growth issues and depletion/degradation of this planet pretty much will require us to colonize other worlds.

Check this out.

Psyche, an asteroid believed to be worth $10,000 quadrillion, is observed through Hubble Telescope in new study | CNN

Earth has a molten metal core that us humans are unable to access and study directly. But there's a giant asteroid orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter that scientists suspect might be the metal core of a planet that never was, and they are looking to learn all about it.

www.cnn.com

 

[Willence]

100% this
edit: idk about the mineral needs, but space exploration and colonization seems like such a no brainer that it baffles me why more money isn't thrown at it. whoever unlocks that genie is going to be a ****ing gazillionaire

Only if our moronic pursuit of AI doesn't lead to Skynet obliterating our species.

 

[southerncaltiger]

Check this out.

Psyche, an asteroid believed to be worth $10,000 quadrillion, is observed through Hubble Telescope in new study | CNN

Earth has a molten metal core that us humans are unable to access and study directly. But there's a giant asteroid orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter that scientists suspect might be the metal core of a planet that never was, and they are looking to learn all about it.

www.cnn.com

That's pretty interesting, but iron/nickel rich asteroids aren't uncommon. Most importantly, I love the caveat-rich language used in the article:

• "...believed to be worth..."
• "...exact composition is unclear..."
• "..not the target we should strive for..."

Still, it's good to see the science advance.

 

[southerncaltiger]

Only if our moronic pursuit of AI doesn't lead to Skynet obliterating our species.

You mean like the Police sung it..."When you'll find your servant is your master..."

 

[WapPride]

Don't you work in the nuclear field, or am i confusing you with someone else?

 

[southerncaltiger]

Don't you work in the nuclear field, or am i confusing you with someone else?

No, you've got me correctly. I work in the environmental policy space for a large electric utility. I used to work for Southern Company in ATL and Fluor Daniel (Greenville and Irvine) prior to that. The nuclear experience comes via the fact that I spent a good part of my career in power operations...some of that was nuclear related. Two of my degrees are in geology, so that's where the other part comes from.

 

[leetp]

Since this thread has found some new life, anyone care to weigh in again on the implications of the subject of the thread and its potential ramifications, e.g. apparently accurate predictions are {possible, or just chance}, though atmospheric CO2 is increasing, temperature sensitivity is not has high as nearly every other model predicts, or {expound upon your own conclusions}...

I dare say this only confirms that the global warming catastrophe theory is absolute bunk...that CO2 capacity to absorb the earth's blackbody has an upper bound, that temperature behavior as it approaches that upper bound is indeed logorithmic and thus diminishes rapidly has CO2 concentration increases.... behavior that is well understood and predicted through quantum analysis.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Forgotten Equation Could Be Key In Recycling CO2

Cornell University scientists have turned to an old electrochemical equation from 1903 to help manage atmospheric CO2 and convert it into useful products.

finance.yahoo.com