Economists need to understand the difference between production and extraction. Then they need to start telling politicians about it. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The general point still applies, and it is this: there are things that operate on a cycle, where something is produced and at the end of the cycle you are where you started, so you can do it again; then there are things that don't operate in a cycle, where something is extracted and used up. Production from a cycle is a gain, and extraction is a cost. The price of any resource should include the cost of returning the source to its original state. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I might do a diary on iron, but it's just not as exciting writing "Lots of iron, nothing to see here, move along" than "Peak oil, peak gas and peak tires, does god hate cars?". ;)
Anyway, just as an appetizer. Australia is a very big iron producer (or should I say extractor?). Almost all of Australia's iron ore is mined in the Pilbara area. At the current mining rate reserves will last for 300 years.
Another example of the abundance of iron on this world is the pretty much unexploited mountain of El Mutún in Bolivia, home to 70 % of the worlds iron ore.
Uranium-38 is 99,3 % of all uranium, so for every kg of U-235 ever mined there is 140 kg of U-238 lying around. Due to reactor physics it "only" contains 60 times as much energy as the original U-235. There is so much of it around that the Americans are wasting it as cannon shells. They should use tungsten like ordinary people. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
So, in a way, mining of minerals, topsoil depletion, or old-growth wood should not be considered to add to the GDP but to subtract from it. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I'm still drunk from France's victory, please don't hurt me.
Screw Physics, here I come Chemistry ;))
I meant grow in the sense "before being used on starch" but now that you mention, it does make sense that bacteria reproduce through division.
Ok Chemistry will have to wait, here I come FIFA Fair-Play department!
(I have no idea whether that was intentional of yours but it got my ribs moving)
G'night Mig (and to you all)!!
Can't fathom peak bacteria at all.
Ok I think I really need to give up on Chemistry and even Biology ... here I come Acting School!
I was thinking of a bacterial osmosis, where one bacteria could feed off another bacteria feeding on the first. But I think I'm just trying to sound smart.
[sens figuré] Influence réciproque.
Influence réciproque, interpénétration -- Une osmose s'est produite entre ces deux civilisations.
Strange acquired meaning. Osmosis is usually unidirectional. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
So exit Physics & Chemistry, here I come Vocabulary ;)))
Due to reactor physics it "only" contains 60 times as much energy as the original U-235.
What do you mean "contains 60 times as much energy" than U-235? In what sense? The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
For an (oldish) breeder assessment see "Nuclear Power and Energy Security: A Revised Strategy for Japan (1998)" specifically chpt. 4. AFAIK the problems it highlights are still problems today (but I could be wrong).
For a more general skeptical view of nuclear (fission) power in general see "WHY NUCLEAR POWER CANNOT BE A MAJOR ENERGY SOURCE"... The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
