freeztar Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 It'd be interesting to compile a list of Earth-based resources that have predictable quantities remaining and to cite sources claiming the life expectancies of these resources. In other words, how much oil do we have left? How much nickel? Furthermore, it would be great if participants in this thread could state the current uses for the resource as well as known alternatives. How will we adapt to limitations of the resource? It's easy to assume that we'll always have petroleum-based plastic shopping bags, but in reality, it's not possible. Every resource is finite here on Earth. To get the ball rolling.... According to this site, there's only about 50,000 tonnes of gold left unmined. Wikipedia states that gold production can continue for 45 years at present pace. At the end of 2006, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined totaled 158,000 tonnes.[18] This can be represented by a cube with an edge length of just 20.2 meters. At current consumption rates, the supply of gold is believed to last 45 years.[19] Since gold is used as an ideal conductor due to its resistance to corrosion and malleability, it currently enjoys widespread use. What will we use when it becomes scarce? Copper? That begs the question, how much copper is left? :) Note, this doesn't need to be confined to metals or precious materials. Yttrium can be assessed as can helium. Certain elements/compounds are not easily predictable in terms of extraction/abundance though. In those cases, what makes it difficult to estimate? Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't know how useful this is, but I read in a paper yesterday that there are oil reserves the the ground below Iraq which is at least 50 times larger than those in the North Sea (where Norway produce all it's oil). I can't quantify this in a meaningful way though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Good thread Freezy, this has been touched on in many threads but never really expanded on further than simply stating we are running out of this or that. A great many people seem to think we can continue to live on the Earth business as usual by simply conserving energy or switching to some other form of energy but the reality is that no matter what type of energy we use we will run out of key raw materials at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Every resource is finite here on Earth. I disagree with this statement. Perhaps a correct way to say this is that every resource, in its current state, is limited. When we mine rock phosphate to make triple super phosphate, that phosphorous atom doesn't disappear after application, it is just transformed into a different (although likely harder to access) form. Ultimately, the oceans are our nutrient reservoir, and I believe in the future, as rock minerals for agriculture become more scarce, we will use organisms to bio-accumulate minerals for agricultural production. There is a different process involved in your example of gold mining. Once gold is mined, it is used and reused. It is too precious not to. Likewise iron, aluminum, and many other commonly used metals. The difficult part of recycling is when the metal is used in a product that is a blend of materials, and seperating the metal from the other constituents becomes more costly. As scarcity increases, this process will become more economical. Oil falls in a different category, as it is the particular chemical arrangement of constituent atoms that makes it useful, not the atoms themselves. Tyson has already figured out a way to make plastic from chicken feathers (I can't remember the source for this statement, I will see if I can find it), it just isn't cost effective right now. As oil reserves fall, alternative measures will become more cost efficient for making plastic. Plastic is central to our ability to maintain sterile environments, especially in the health care industry, and will likely never disappear, even though oil reserves might. Even if plastic does become scarce, glass would be an effective substitute in many cases. Plastic is not a necessity for many applications it is used in today, such as grocery bags, it is just a cheaper alternative. As scarcity increases, other alternatives will take its place. The only unrecoverable resource we have is energy, as once it is used, it is gone. However, we conveniently orbit or own personal fusion reactor, at what is a relatively safe distance, and we currently use nowhere near its potential. ETA: After a brief search, there are many instances of chicken feathers being used to create a wide variety of different plastic products. My point is that plastic is made from organic compounds, and it doesn't have to originate from petroleum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 JM, helium comes to mind as limited resource, and while gold is indeed recycled the process is not 100% efficient, some of any recycled material is lost each time it is recycled. Gold is in such a limited supply and such high demand it will still run out if for no other reason due to losses in recycling. As humans expand and continue to "use" resources there will come a point where demand will outstrip supply no matter how frugal we are in use and recycling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 by JMJones0424, The only unrecoverable resource we have is energy, as once it is used, it is gone. However, we conveniently orbit or own personal fusion reactor, at what is a relatively safe distance, and we currently use nowhere near its potential. While this is true there is a limit even for solar power, collecting solar power requires much more space than generating power via fission or Geo-thermal, or wind. There will be a limit to how much solar power we can generate. The limits will be due to raw materials needed to build solar panels and the space needed to spread them out. if raw materials to not limit what we do on the earth available space most certainly will. Can you imagine the space needed to generate enough power to operate even one small steel mill with solar power? An aluminum refinery? The ultimate raw material limit is space, space for humans space for the industry that supports us. Ultimately space will be the answer as in Outer Space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 You are, of course, correct. Hydrogen and helium escape the atmosphere at a measurable rate, and therefor they are limited. I just think that economics will play a larger role in resource management than people give it credit for. Freeztar's original statement, about gold reserves running out in 45 years, assumes two things that I think are fundamentally flawed. 1) Gold mining will continue at current rates, with current efficiencies. This is incorrect, because as gold becomes more scarce, it will be more highly valued. The mine that can not make a profit at $700 dollars an ounce may be profitable at $1000. 2) Gold use will remain the same and increase at the same rate every year. This is again incorrect, because as gold becomes more scarce, alternatives will become more economical. I guess the point I am trying to make is that there are many things in this world to be worried about. Thankfully, some people are worried about resource scarcity. But I think ultimately, market forces will generate more efficiencies AND alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Moontanman- here is a link to only one of the many alternatives to silicon based PV cells being designed. Bill Gross on new energy | Video on TED.com Again, I think you are limiting yourself to current technologies applied to current resource limitations. Resource scarcity is a factor in many things, but I don't believe the sky is falling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Good points raised so far everyone! ;) I just think that economics will play a larger role in resource management than people give it credit for. I will not deny that at all, but nonetheless, you can't buy more helium if none exists.Freeztar's original statement, about gold reserves running out in 45 years, assumes two things that I think are fundamentally flawed. 1) Gold mining will continue at current rates, with current efficiencies. This is incorrect, because as gold becomes more scarce, it will be more highly valued. The mine that can not make a profit at $700 dollars an ounce may be profitable at $1000.You are correct. But, we have to look at the big picture. Current massive gold mining operations are an abomination on the local environment. The pits can grow so big that they are seen from space. In fact, several can be seen on Google Earth (which I urge people to look at because it really is impressive). The process of extracting the gold from the rock typically uses mercury, which is then put into the environment with disasterous results sometimes. And, as Moon mentioned, there's the space issue. Some of the mines have destroyed hundreds of acres of pristine rain forest and other valuable land resources, never to be recovered. So, we face a trade-off with resource management. At what point do we value the environment over the price of gold, regardless of how much is left un-mined? 2) Gold use will remain the same and increase at the same rate every year. This is again incorrect, because as gold becomes more scarce, alternatives will become more economical.Indeed, that figure assumes current trends. I agree that is a flaw with their prediction. I don't see demand diminishing, so that figure may be lower. Or, as you point out, it may just mean that previously unknown and untapped gold may be mined (ie in the deep ocean), in which case their figure might be quite conservative. For certain applications, there may not be good alternatives (currently) for gold. In such cases, it does not matter how the economics pan out. There's a great article in last month's National Geographic on gold. One of the interesting points they address is that certain cultures (they focus on Indians) have an embedded desire for gold in their culture. They hoarde gold and give it as wedding gifts. The gold is kept in the family and passed down from generation to generation. I can't recall the exact statistic off the top of my head, but India and China account for a majority of the world demand for gold. On top of this is the financial disparity between those that desire and can afford gold and the miners that extract it. In summary, I do think that economics will continue to play a role, but it's only one slice of the pie. I guess the point I am trying to make is that there are many things in this world to be worried about. Thankfully, some people are worried about resource scarcity. But I think ultimately, market forces will generate more efficiencies AND alternatives. Let's hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essay Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 What a great Topic!!I haven't even read it all carefully yet, but I had to join in--for a bit-o' "Lunchtime Little Theatre." I was going to mention soil as a commodity that we may run short of, but it is renewable--CO2 being its genesis--via microbes.....But I was afraid I might sound like a fanatic!=== But I have also had thoughts along the lines of what JMJones says:Around the house here we joke, as we fail to be perfect recyclers, that in the future they'll be mining the landfills for whatever we are now improperly throwing into the trashcan. Everything will eventually be recycled as each easily available natural resource becomes depleted, in the future.Even now, our computers and other "e-waste" is crudely (toxicly) mined for precious metals, by poor third-worlders. Other wastes are being mined for precious metals too!...and no puns about the value of soil from this link please!Japanese waste treatment plant recovers gold from sewage | NowPublic News CoverageA sewage treatment facility in Central Japan is recovering more gold per year from processed sewage than some of the country’s biggest mines can yield. The plant has reported recovering almost 2 kg of gold per ton of sewage recently. In contrast, one of the biggest Japanese mines yields 20-40 grams of gold per ton of ore processed.hmmm... Looks like a neat site.NowPublic.com | The News is NowPublic=== MTM, very good points too. Eventually we'll be mining asteroids, etc., but in for the next century....The important time to know about, is when those readily available raw materials will tail off.What will be the first limiting metal, when trying to construct a circuit board, interplanetary probe, or some nano-bioprobe?...or the next limiting metal--or other resource needed for processing, catalysis, and manufacturing? Yep, lots to think about here.... ~ ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Good points raised so far everyone! :hyper: But, we have to look at the big picture. Current massive gold mining operations are an abomination on the local environment. The pits can grow so big that they are seen from space. In fact, several can be seen on Google Earth (which I urge people to look at because it really is impressive). The process of extracting the gold from the rock typically uses mercury, which is then put into the environment with disasterous results sometimes. And, as Moon mentioned, there's the space issue. Some of the mines have destroyed hundreds of acres of pristine rain forest and other valuable land resources, never to be recovered. ... Just a note that it is cyanide that is used more commonly these days to extract gold from ore than is mercury, and not all mines are abominations. >>Gold Extraction Using Cyanide Leaching Then there is the getting of the mercury and the getting of the cyanide as resources themselves, and yada yada yada I don't think we will ever "run out" of stuff because we peeps are "stuff users" and we do as we do. I'm all for being responsible but I'm not for going back to live like a caveman. Geico be damned, or at least insure my spacecraft going out to mine nearby asteroids caught in a spiral around Earth and my chicken-feather-plastic delivery fleet. Corkscrew Asteroid To infinity, and beyond, because what is always left is human ingenuity!! :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.